Free Online Analytic Insight Net for Discovery of Metteyya the Awakened One with Awareness Universe(FOAINDMAOAU) For the Welfare, Happiness and Peace for all Sentient and Non-Sentient Beings and for them to Attain Eternal Bliss as Final Goal.Free Online Analytic Insight Net for Discovery of Metteyya the Awakened One with Awareness Universe(FOAINDMAOAU) For the Welfare, Happiness and Peace for all Sentient and Non-Sentient Beings and for them to Attain Eternal Bliss as Final Goal.
From Analytic Insight Net - FREE Online Tipiṭaka Law Research & Practice University in
 111 CLASSICAL LANGUAGES in BUDDHA'S own Words through http://sarvajan.ambedkar.orgat 668, 5A main Road, 8th Cross, HAL 3rd Stage, Bangalore- Karnataka State -India Do good. Purify mind -‘The gift of Dhamma excels all other gifts – sabba danam dhamma danam to attain NIBBANA as Final Goal
Categories:

Archives:
Meta:
February 2020
M T W T F S S
« Jan   Mar »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
242526272829  
02/19/20
link between Buddha Dhamma Sangha and tamil sangam era
Filed under: General
Posted by: site admin @ 8:54 pm

https://www.sangam.org/2010/12/Tamil_Buddhists.php?uid=4177

link between Buddha Dhamma Sangha and tamil sangam era

Ilankai Tamil Sangam

24th Year on the Web
Association of Tamils of Sri Lanka in the USA

Home
Archives
The Tamil Buddhists of the Past and the Future

by J.L. Devananda, ArticlesBase, October 4, 2010

The remains of a Buddhist monastery excavated at Kaveripattinum which could be assigned to the fourth century are believed to be the earliest archaeological relics of Buddhism in Tamil Nadu. The major urban centers of Kanchipuram, Kaveripattinam, Uragapura (Uraiyur), and Madurai were not only centers of Buddhism, but these were also important centers of Pali learning…

The situation in Tamil Nadu, however, began to change towards the beginning of the 7th Century AD when the rise of Vaishnavism and Saivism posed a serious challenge to Buddhism and Jainism.

In his keynote address at the 2554th Vesak (Vaishakha Purnim) celebrations at the Mahabodhi Society in Chennai, Prof. Sunil Ariyaratne, University of Sri Jayawardenapura, Sri Lanka said, “As we are nearing 2600 Buddha Jayanthi, as a Sinhala Buddhist, this is my humble dream for the future: Tamil Buddhist temples should come up in Sri Lanka; Tamil children should embrace Buddhist monkhood; Buddhism must be taught in Tamil; preaching and worshipping Buddhism in Tamil; Tamil Bikkus should have Sinhala followers and Tamil Bhikkus must visit Sinhala homes. That togetherness should be there.”

This sounds somewhat similar to the famous speech “I have a Dream” by Martin Luther King, Jr in 1963 from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial during the march for freedom at Washington. The only difference is Prof. Sunil Ariyaratne’s dream of Tamil Buddhism in Sri Lanka in the future had already existed in the past.

Ancient Buddhist links between Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka

Today, the Palk Strait which lies between Tamil Nadu and Sri Lankan land masses, is seen as a divider, separating two different distinct ethnicities, religions, cultures and political entities but there was a phase in history when Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka enjoyed very close ties, thanks to a shared interest in Buddhism. During the early period, the Palk Strait was not seen as a divider but it was a unifier. At that time Buddhism was a bridge between Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu. The fascinating story of the historical links - Golden threads between Buddhism in Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka was narrated by Dr. Shu Hikosake, Director and Professor of Buddhism, Institute of Asian Studies in Madras in his book 1989 Buddhism in Tamil Nadu: a New Perspective. Dr. Hikosaka’s study is based on his doctoral dissertation.

The earliest inscriptions in Tamil Nadu written in the Brahmi character of the time, on the walls of the natural caves in the Tamil districts of Madura, Ramnad and Tirnnelveli belongs to the third century BC. They are of considerable interest to students of South Indian Buddhism. It is learnt from these Brahmi inscriptions, that Buddhism had come into Tamil Nadu even then. However, the epigraphical evidence seems to confirm that, it was to King Asoka and the missionary monk Mahinda (believed to be his son) that the introduction of Buddhism into Tamil Nadu may be attributed. In his Rock-Edict No. III, King Asoka says that his Dharma Vijaya prevailed in the kingdoms of the Colas, Pandyans and at Tambapanni (Sri Lanka). Particularly the edict number XIII found near Peshawar, there is reference to the Buddhist missions of Asoka. Among the countries referred to are Cola, Pandya, and Tambapanni. This inscription was written in 258 B.C. and is direct evidence of the Buddhist missions of Asoka to the Tamil country and Sri Lanka even though it does not mention about his son Mahinda. As Buddhist missions to Sri Lanka had to come by way of South India, the spread of Buddhism in Sri Lanka and South India in the 2nd century AD should be considered contemporary events, but it was King Asoka’s son Mahinda who was responsible for the introduction of Buddhism in Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka. Mahinda is said to have erected seven viharas at Kaveripattinum, the capital of Cola while he was on his way to Sri Lanka. According to Dr. Hikosaka, contrary to the general impression, Buddhism might have gone to Sri Lanka from Tamil Nadu by sea-route, a route by which one can reach Sri Lanka easily. Since there existed very close cultural affinities between Sri Lanka and the Tamil country from time immemorial, the Buddhist activities in India could have easily influenced in some way or other the Buddhism of Sri Lanka, says Dr. Hikosaka.

Even though it is believed that Buddha had visited this region, South India (Andhra) and Sri Lanka, according to historians, Buddhism began to make a strong impact on Tamil Nadu only in the 3rd century AD. During that period Buddhism had spread widely in Tamil Nadu and won the patronage of the rulers. The remains of a Buddhist monastery excavated at Kaveripattinum which could be assigned to the fourth century are believed to be the earliest archaeological relics of Buddhism in Tamil Nadu. The major urban centers of Kanchipuram, Kaveripattinam, Uragapura (Uraiyur), and Madurai were not only centers of Buddhism, but these were also important centers of Pali learning. The other minor towns of Tamil country where Buddhism was active were Buddhamangalam, Sanghamangalam, Kumbakonam, Mayurapattanam, Alamkudipatti, Kuvam, Sanghamangai, Tiruppadirippuliyur, and so on.

Tamil Buddhists contribute to Buddhist scriptures

It was at this time that Tamil Nadu gave some of its greatest scholars (both Theravada and Mahayana) to the Buddhist world. Tamil Nadu boasted of outstanding Buddhist monks, who had made remarkable contributions to Buddhist thought and learning. Three of the greatest Pali scholars of this period were Buddhaghosa, Buddhadatta, and Dhammapala and all three of them were associated with Buddhist establishments in the Tamil kingdoms.

Buddhadatta or Thera Buddhaatta as he is called lived during the time of Accyutarikkanta, the Kalabra ruler of the Cola-Nadu; was a senior contemporary of Buddhaghosa. He was born in the Cola kingdom and lived in the 5th Century AD. Under the patronage of this ruler, Buddhadatta wrote many books. Among his best known Pali writings are the Vinaya-Vinicchaya, the Uttara-Vinicchaya and the Jinalankara-Kavya. Among the commentaries written by him are the Madhurattha-Vilasini and the Abhidhammavatara. In the Abhidhammaratara he gives a glowing account at Kaveripattinum, Uragapuram, Bhutamangalam and Kanchipuram and the Mahavihara at Anuradapura, (Sri Lanka). While he was at Sri Lanka, he composed many Buddhist works such as Uttara-viniccaya Ruparupa Vibhaga Jinalankara etc. Buddhaghosha, contemporary of Buddhadatta also composed many Buddhist commentaries.

Buddhaghosha is a Tamil monk, who made a remarkable contribution to Buddhism in Sri Lanka. He stayed and studied Buddhist precepts at Mahavihara in Anuradhapura. The Visuddhimagga was the first work of Buddhaghosha which was written while he was in Sri Lanka.

After Buddhaghosha, the important Theravada monk from the Tamil country was Dhammapala. Dhammapala lived in the Mahavihara at Anuradhapura. He composed paramathadipani which was a commentary on Buddhaghosha’s work on Khuddaka Nikaya and Paramathamanjusa, which was a commentary on Buddhaghosha’s Visuddhimagga. A close study of the three Buddhist monks viz Buddhadatta, Buddhaghosha and Dhammapala shows that Tamil Buddhists were closely associated with the Sri Lankan Buddhists around the 5th century AD.

The author of Nettipakarana is another Dhammapala who was a resident of a monastery in Nagapattinam, another important Buddhist centre from ancient times. One more example is the Cola monk Kassapa, in his Pali work, Vimatti-Vinodani, this Tamil monk provides interesting information about the rise of heretical views in the Cola Sangha and the consequent purification that took place. There are so many other Tamil monks who are attributed to the Pali works some of them were resident at Mayura-rupa-pattana (Mylapore, Madras) along with Buddhagosha.

The Tamil Buddhist monks used Pali languages in preference to Tamil in their writings. This is because the Buddha spoke in Magadi Prakrit (Pali). Sanskrit is the sacred language of the Hindus, and similarly Pali is considered as the sacred language of the Buddhists. The well known Tamil Buddhist epics found were Manimekalai, Silappadhikaram, Valaiyapathi, Kundalakesi, and Jivaka Cintamani. Manimekalai, a purely Buddhist work of the 3rd Sangam period in Tamil literature is the most supreme and famous among the Buddhist work done in Tamil Nadu. It is a work expounding the doctrines and propagating the values of Buddhism. The interaction between Tamil Nadu and Sri Lankan monks finds mention in Manimekalai, which is set in the Tamil towns of Kaveipumpattinam, Kanchi, and Vanchi. There is mention about the presence of wondering monks of Sri Lanka in Vanchi, which was the capital of the Chera Kings of Tamil Nadu. The Chinese traveller, Tsuan Tsang, wrote that there were around 300 Sri Lankan monks in the monastery at the Southern sector of Kanchipuram. Ancient Kanchipuram, the capital of Tondaimandalam, ruled by the Tamil Pallava dynasty, an offshoot of Chola rulers was the major seat of Tamil learning and is also known as the city of thousand temples. Even Thirukkural, the ancient Tamil couplets/aphorisms celebrated by Tamils is based on Buddhist principals. Although Buddhism has become almost extinct from Tamil Nadu, it has contributed a great deal to the enrichment of Tamil culture and has exerted a significant influence, both directly and indirectly, on the Tamil religious and spiritual consciousness, present as well as past.

Tamil Buddhism in Sri Lanka

As Buddhism was one of the dominant religions in both Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka, naturally there were very close relations between the two regions. The monks from Sri Lanka, too, went across to the Tamil kingdom and stayed in the monasteries. As Dr. Leslie Gunawardana says, `The co-operation between the Buddhist Sangha of South India and Sri Lanka produced important results which are evident in the Pali works of this period`. He also says that the Tamil Buddhist monks were more orthodox than their counterparts in Sri Lanka. Indeed, the relations between the Tamil and Sinhala Buddhist monks were so close that the latter sought the assistance of the former in political turmoil.

In Sri Lanka, the Tamil Buddhists who followed Theravada Buddhism shared the common places of worship with the Sinhalese, but there were also Tamil Buddhists who were following the Mahayana Buddhism and they had their own Mahayana temples. There are still some Tamil Mahayana Buddhist establishments (Palli) in the east and possibly in the Jaffna peninsula. The best known was Velgam Vehera (see details below), which was renamed Rajaraja-perumpalli after the Cola emperor. Another was the Vikkirama-calamekan-perumpalli.

Some ten miles northwest of Trincomalee off the Trincomalee - Horowupothana road is an ancient Buddhist shrine with origins dating back to the years before the second century. It is a historical fact that among the many ancient Buddhist shrines in Sri Lanka Velgam Vehera which was renamed Rajaraja-perumpalli, also called Natanar Kovil by the present day Tamils stands out as the only known example of a `Tamil Vihare or Buddhist Palli` or as the late Dr. Senerath Paranavithana described it in his book `Glimpses of Ceylon`s Past` as an `Ancient Buddhist shrine of the Tamil people`. Some of the Tamil inscriptions found at the site record donations to this shrine and are dated in the reigns of the Chola Kings, Rajaraja and Rajendradeva. It was his view that the date of the original foundation of the vihare was no doubt considerably earlier than the reign of King Bhatika Tissa II.

The situation in Tamil Nadu, however, began to change towards the beginning of the 7th Century AD when the rise of Vaishnavism and Saivism posed a serious challenge to Buddhism and Jainism. There was a significant increase in Hindu/Brahmanical influence and soon the worship of Siva and Visnu began to gain prominence. The Buddhist and Jaina institutions in Tamil Nadu came under attack when they began to lose popular support and the patronage from the rulers. One result of this was the migration of Buddhist and Jaina monks and devoted lay members to kingdoms where they could find refuge. While the Jainas and Buddhists (mostly Mahayana) were able to go to Kannada and Andhra/Telugu regions, a large part of the Buddhists (Theravada) turned to Sri Lanka and assimilated with the local Buddhist population.

Mahavihara monks of Anuradapura and the Pali chronicles

Although Buddhism flourished in South India in ancient times, the 5th century AD Pali chronicles such as the Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa written by the Mahavihara monks of Anuradapura (Sri Lanka) remained silent about the introduction of Buddhism to South India. This is because, when Hindu/Brahmanism started reappearing in India and posed a threat to Buddhism, the Mahavihara monks of Anuradapura (Sri Lanka) due to their strong devotion to Buddhism and desire to consolidate and protect this religion in Sri Lanka wrote the Pali chronicles Deepavamsa/Mahavamsa just to glorify Buddhism and the Buddhist kings of Sri Lanka and not to record objectively what happened. The `Lion Ancestry` and the myths about the origin of the Sinhala race as pre-destined, true custodians of the island of Sri Lanka and guardians of Buddhism is a myth of the creative authors to protect Buddhism and is not the common true history. The ancient Sri Lankan Kingdom (Anuradapura) was ruled by both Buddhist and Hindu kings. There is no evidence what so ever to prove that they were Sinhala. The arrival of prince Vijaya and 700 men from North India is only a myth. All those Buddhist Kings of Anuradapura whom we believe today as Sinhala-Buddhists are of Tamil origin. Sinhala language is nothing but a hybrid of Sanskrit, Tamil and Pali. An analysis of the Pali chronicles (Deepavamsa/Mahavamsa) makes it very clear that the Mahavihara monks who authored them in the 5th century AD have created the ethnic identity Sinhala, yoked it with Buddhism and created a new ethno-religious identity in Sri Lanka known as Sinhala-Buddhist to sustain the religion in the country for 5000 years.

The ancient Brahmi inscriptions (before 7th century AD) in Tamil Nadu are in old Tamil where the Tamil names did not end with an ‘N’ or an ‘M’, but were very similar to those Sanskrit/Pali names. It was only after the 7th century AD, that the Tamil language adopted some changes to its Grammar, script, etc. and evolved into the present form. This might have happened after the Tamils developing what is commonly called as the pulli (dot) system which is peculiar to Tamils in particular among the Indian languages and due to this dot system the words/names ending with ‘A’ ends up with ‘N’ and ‘M’. This is the reason why, in the Pali chronicles and in the Brahmi stone inscriptions the names of the Tamil Kings of Anuradhapura were referred to as Sena, Guttika, Elara, Pulahatha, Bahiya, Panayamara, Parinda, Dathiya, etc and not as Senan, Guttikan, Ellalan, etc. Similarly in Tamil Nadu, the names of the ancient kings were referred to as Kulothunga Chola, Vikrma Chola, Aditya Chola, Kulasekara Pandya, Vira Wickrama Pandya, Parakrama Pandya, Sundara Pandya, etc.

It is believed that most of the Tamil Buddhist literary work has been destroyed during religious controversies. The loss of Tamil Buddhist literature was a death blow to Tamil Buddhism. Apart from the Brahmi inscriptions and other archeological evidence found in Tamil Nadu and the available Tamil literary works, the Rock-Edicts of King Asoka also sheds much light on this subject. Even though the Pali chronicles did not mention the ethnic background of the ancient Sri Lankan Buddhists and the Buddhist kings right from Devanampiya Tissa, the Mahavamsa referred to the Non-Buddhist kings as Tamils (invaders). The above facts and the non-existence of Tamil Buddhists during the colonial period (due to the 10th century Chola invasion) led the 19th century European Pali scholars who translated the Pali chronicles to assume and subsequently the present day Sri Lankans to believe that the ancient Buddhists and the Buddhists Kings of Sri Lanka were Sinhalese.

Unfortunately, today there are no Tamil Buddhists in Sri Lanka but the majority of the early Tamils of Sri Lanka (before the 10th century Chola invasion) were Buddhists. The ancient Buddhist remains in the North and East of Sri Lanka are the remnants left by the Tamil Buddhists and not anybody else. They are part of the heritage of Sri Lankan Tamils. Only the Buddhist temples, statues and structures build in the recent past and present in the North and East remain as Sinhala-Buddhist.

Important Questions

The questions still remain, why are the Sri Lankans ignorant of their past or rather, why is the Sri Lanka’s past hidden from its own people? Why do the Sri Lankans believe that the Buddhist sites in Sri Lanka belong only to the Sinhalese (Sinhala heritage) and not to the Tamils? Why are the Sri Lankans ignorant about the early Tamil Buddhists of Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu? Why do the Sri Lankans think, in Sri Lanka a Buddhist should be a Sinhalese and a Hindu should be a Tamil while the Sinhalese worship most of the Hindu/Brahmanical Gods? Why do most Sinhala-Buddhists believe that they are blood relatives of Lord Buddha (Sakya clan)? Why are the Sinhalese so ignorant to believe that the Tamils in Sri Lanka are either invaders or brought by the colonial rulers?

Not only the Indians but even the Sri Lankan Tamils gave up Buddhism and accepted Hinduism. For them to go back to Buddhism, has 2500 years of Buddhism in Sri Lanka (the so called Dhammadveepa) influenced any major changes in the Sinhala society (the so called guardians of Buddhism chosen by none other than the Buddha) in terms of attitude, character, behavior, morality and so on or has it failed miserably? Are the Buddhist monks practicing Ahimsa (non-violence), Karuna (compassion), Metta (affection), and Maithriya (loving-kindness) towards fellow humans (irrespective of race/religion) or are they in the name of Buddhism promoting ethno-religious chauvinism and hatred?

Buddhism in Sri Lanka is monopolized by the Sinhalese and they call it Sinhala-Buddhism which is Theravada Buddhism (Tripitaka) mixed up with the Mahavamsa. Will the Sinhala-Buddhist Maha Sangha accept any Tamil Buddhist monks? Will the Tamils accept Mahavamsa as a part of Buddhism or Buddhist history knowing very well that it is a Sinhala-Buddhist mythology?

Prof. Sunil Ariyaratne’s dream of future Tamil Buddhists is very genuine and apt during this period. As he says, it may recreate the togetherness, the common bond that once existed between the Sinhalese and Tamils. It will not be a surprise if Nanda Malini sings about the Damila Buddhayo of the past and the future but can his dream materialize? Of course, miracles do happen; Martin Luther King Junior’s dream came true so let us have some hope.

Retrieved from “http://www.articlesbase.com/culture-articles/the-tamil-buddhists-of-the-past-and-the-future-3402500.html”
(ArticlesBase SC #3402500)

—————————————————————————-

From Barbaric Sinhala-Buddhism to Civilized Buddhism

by J.L. Devananda, ArticlesBase, December 22, 2010

The Buddhism practiced in Sri Lanka, better known as Sinhala-Buddhism (or Mahavamsa-Buddhism) is different from the Theravada Buddhism practiced in other countries such as Thailand, Cambodia and so on. The Buddhists in these countries follow only the Buddhist scriptures Tripitaka (Viniya, Sutta, Abhidhamma), whereas in Sri Lanka the ‘Mahavamsa,’ which was written by one of the Mahavihara monks (Ven. Mahanama) more than 1000 years after the passing away of Lord Buddha is also considered as a part of the Buddhist scriptures, although it deals mostly with mythical or supernatural Buddhist history, some episodes of which are copied from the ‘Mahabaratha’ and ‘Ramayana.’ Since the Buddhist scriptures (Tripitaka) and the mythical Buddhist history (Mahavamsa) were both written in the Pali language, a Buddhist layperson who does not understand Pali cannot understand the difference between the two and, therefore, he/she believes everything that the Buddhist monks preach, to be the true words of Buddha.

Due to ignorance, even the present day Sinhala-Buddhists still believe that they are blood relatives of Buddha because, according to the Mahavamsa, their forefather Pandu-Vasudeva belongs to the Sakya clan, and is a relative of the Buddha where as the historians believe that the term ‘Pandu’ in Pali means Pandyans.

According to Buddhism, a person ordained as a Bikkhu should practice Ahimsa (non-violence), Karuna (compassion), Metta (affection), and Maithriya (loving-kindness) towards fellow humans, (irrespective of race or religion), not only by words but also in his thoughts and action. Unfortunately in Sri Lanka, due to the influence of the Mahavamsa, a Buddhist Bikkhu is at liberty to engage in racist politics and promote Sinhala-Buddhist chauvinism and hatred, as we see today.

Protecting Buddhism

There was NO Buddhism in Sri Lanka until Emperor Asoka’s missionary monks led by Mahinda converted the Hindu (Siva worshipping) Naga King Tissa into a Buddhist in the 2nd century BC. Similarly, there was NO Sinhala race/tribe in Sri Lanka until the Mahavihara monks created it in the 5th century AD. When Hindu/Brahmanical influence posed a serious challenge to Buddhism and when Buddhism started to lose popular support and the patronage from the rulers, the Buddhist institutions in India came under attack. The Mahavihara monks of Anuradapura including Ven. Mahanama, the author of the Pali chronicle Mahavamsa and a close relative of the Buddhist Naga king Dhatusena witnessed the decline and disorientation of Buddhism in India. The events that took place in India against Buddhism must have prompted the Mahavihara monks in Sri Lanka to come up with a plan/strategy to protect Buddhism. Due to their strong devotion to Buddhism and desire to consolidate and protect this religion in Sri Lanka they have decided to write the Pali chronicles Deepavamsa/Mahavamsa making Sri Lanka a Dammadeepa/Sinhaladvipa (chosen land of Buddha where Buddhism will prevail for 5000 years) and creating the Sinhala race by integrating all the Buddhists from different tribes/ethnic groups into one race and making them the sustainers of Buddhism (Gautama Buddha’s chosen people) to protect Buddhism in Sri Lanka for 5000 years until the next Maithriya Buddha arrive. With the patronage of the Buddhist Kings, it is the Mahavihara monks who assimilated all the Buddhists from many different tribes together and called them Sihala (followers of Mythical Vijaya). There may have been instances where the convicted criminals from India (Bengal/Gujarat) who were exiled would have sleeked asylum in the island and would have been allowed to settle and got assimilated with the local population, but there is NO historical evidence what so ever to prove Vijaya’s arrival with 700 men or to say there were Sinhalese during the Early Historic period. The term ‘Sihala’ itself first appeared ONLY in the 5th Century AD Pali chronicles Deepavamsa/Mahavamsa and that also ONLY twice in the beginning chapters. To date, no archaeological evidence has been found to prove ‘Hela’ or ‘Sihala’ or ‘Sinhala’ existed before that or anything about Vijaya’s arrival. Only the Mahavamsa Tika that was composed very much later to interpret the Mahavamsa, mentions that it was adopted from the mysterycal ‘Vamsa texts’ known as ‘Sihala Atthakatha’ (collection of Sinhala verbal stories). Very strangely, most of the mythical/supernatural stories from the so called ‘Sihala Atthakatha Vamsa texts’ are very similar to those found in the Indian Epics and Puranas such as the Mahabaratha/Ramayana. Ultimately, the Mahavamsa has transformed the Buddha into a special patron of Sinhala-Buddhism, an ethnic religion created in Sri Lanka.

Sinhala and Damela

There are enough of ancient archaeological evidence in Sri Lanka such as Brahmi stone inscriptions, cave writings, Pali chronicles, etc where the terms ‘Dameda’, ‘Damela’, ‘Damila’, ‘Demel’ are mentioned as a group of people living in the island. Even in the Jataka stories such as Akitti Jataka, there is a reference to Tamil country (Damila-rattha), where as there is NO evidence what so ever about the terms ‘Hela’, ‘Sihala’, ‘Sinhala’ before and even a few centuries after the Pali chronicles were written. Even the Mahavamsa says, the missionary monk Mahinda Maha Thero preached Buddhism to the people of the island in Deepa basa (language of the island) but it does not say that the deepa basa was ‘Elu’ or ‘Helu’ or ‘Sihala’.

Some Sinhala scholars have a weak argument for the above. They argue that the ethnic name of the dominant group does not occur in these records for the very good reason that there is no need to distinguish any person by referring to him/her as such when the people as a whole are entitled to that name (Sihala). The million dollar question is why it is not the case now because today they are actually the dominant ethnic group? (How they became a majority is another subject but I will briefly mention below). Today, leave aside the major things like medicine, etc, even the smallest stuff like roof tiles are labelled after ‘Sinhala’.

The above argument could have been accepted if the terms ‘Hela’, ‘Sihala’, ‘Sinhala’ was found at least somewhere outside Sri Lanka such as in any of the ancient literary works and/or the stone inscriptions/rock edicts of neighbouring India (either South or North) that was always associated with the island’s history, but unfortunately nothing has been found until now.

The kingdoms of Anuradapura and Polonnaruwa were NEVER known as Sinhala kingdoms and the Naga and Tamil kings who ruled these kingdoms never called themselves ‘Hela’, ‘Sihala’, or ‘Sinhala’. There is no evidence to prove that the Nagas were Sinhalese or they became Sinhalese. Subsequent to the Cola domination of Sri Lanka in the 10th century A.D, people who identified themselves as Buddhists and Sinhalese shifted their seats of rule from the ancient kingdoms of Anuradapura and Polanaruwa towards South and Central Sri Lanka while the people who identified themselves as Hindus (Saiva) and Tamils moved their ruling structures from these same regions to the North and East of the island. It was only after the 13th century AD that the kingdoms of Kotte and Kandy were known as ‘Sinhale’ even though some parts of the Tamil areas in North and East also came under the Kandyan rule but Kandy was mostly ruled by the Kalingas of South-East India and the Nayakkars of South India with whom the Tamils did not have any problems. Also, the term ‘Sinhale’, appeared only in the 13th Century AD Chulavamsa and NOT in Deepavamsa/Mahavamsa.

In the 16th century, the Portuguese and in the 18th century, the Dutch who occupied the island brought in tens of thousands of people from South India (presently Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andara) and settled them in the Southern parts of the island as menial labourers (for growing/peeling cinnamon, fishing/pearl diving, coconut planting/plucking, toddy tapping, and for many other jobs). Within a few centuries, the Sinhala population increased exponentially when these people assimilated with the local Sinhala population by adopting the Sinhala language and the Buddhist religion. Today their decedents (6th generation) are not only claiming the ancient Sri Lankan civilization as their own ‘Sinhala’ heritage but have also become the patriots and champions of Sinhala-Buddhist chauvinism.

It was the British who re-discovered the Mahavamsa in the early 20th century and their so called European ‘Pali Scholars’ misinterpreted it, thereby creating another myth known as Arya-Sinhala. Since the Sinhala (Elu) language (mixture of Sanskrit, Pali and Tamil/Malayalam) was more of Indo-Aryan in nature, the British declared that the Sinhalese were Aryans from North India and the Tamils were Dravidians from South India. Influenced by the colonial historiography, the Sinhalese declared that they were indigenous to the island, and that the Tamils were invaders from South India.

Mahavamsa Mythology

It is said in MAHAVAMSA CHAPTER VII - THE CONSECRATING OF VIJAYA,
**But the king Sihabahu, since he had slain the lion (was called) Sihala and, by reason of the ties between him and them, all those (followers of VIJAYA) were also (called) Sihala.**

If Sihabahu whose father had slain the lion was called Sihala and his eldest son Vijaya and his followers were also called Sihala, then what about Vijaya’s twin brother Sumitta and his followers in Sinhapura, India? Why they were not called Sihala? That itself proves that Vijaya and the Sinhala race was a creation of Ven. Mahanama and the Mahavihara monks.

Another good example of the myths, fantasies, superstitions and fables from the Mahavamsa is the Elara/Dutugemunu episode. Just around ten lines/verses in the Pali chronicle Deepavamsa about the Elara/Dutugemunu was blown up into 11 chapters in the Mahavamsa just to glorify Buddhism and the Buddhist kings against the Hindus which gave birth to “superior race”, “Bhoomiputhra (sons of the soil)”, “Sinhaladivpa” “unitary state” and “Dhammadivpa” theories. The Mahavamsa author being a Buddhist monk and justifying the killing of around sixty thousand Tamils/Hindus (aka invaders) by Dutugemunu is one reason why others (non-Buddhists) think that Sinhala-Buddhism is somewhat of a violent barbaric form of Buddhism where killing Tamils is justified. The killing of Tamils in Sri Lanka by the Sinhala-Buddhists even today is due to this uncivilized and barbaric ehhno-religion known as Sinhala-Buddhism (or Mahavamsa-Buddhism).

There is a clear record of all the main events of Buddha, the places he visited, with whom he was, where and what he preached and to whom he preached, in the Buddhist scriptures Tripitika, but nowhere it is mentioned that the Buddha visited or even spoke about the island of Lanka. In order to protect Buddhism in Sri Lanka from those powerful South Indian Hindu kingdoms, Ven. Mahanama wrote the Mahavamsa, by added his own imaginations and myths. He has introduced many events concerning Buddha which never took place, things that Buddha has never said or done, events which are not mentioned in any of the Buddhist scriptures (both Theravada and Mahayana).

For example, according to the Mahavamsa, Buddha made three magical trips to Sri Lanka, each time colonizing another area of the island, in preparation for the formal introduction of Buddhism two centuries after his death. One of these trips was to settle a dispute between the Yakkhas and Nagas at Naga Divipa (Ninathivu) where the Buddha tamed the Yakkhas, the non-human inhabitants of the island.

There is no evidence whatsoever to support this claim (Buddha’s 3 visits), other than the three chaithiyas (Buddhist structures) built in the recent past by the Sinhalese Buddhists at 3 different locations to say, ‘This is where Buddha came.’ Even the footprint of Buddha at Sri Pada (Adam’s peak) is nothing but an obvious myth.

According to the Mahavamsa, just before passing away, Buddha has called the Sakka (King of Gods) and told him,

‘My doctrine, O Sakka, will eventually be established in the Island of Lanka, and on this day, Vijay the eldest son of Singha Bahu king of Sinhapura in the Lata country lands there with 700 followers and will assume sovereignty there. Do thou, therefore guard well the prince and his train and the Island of Lanka. On receiving the blessed one’s command, Sakka summoned God Vishnu and said, ‘Do thou. O lotus-hued one, protect with zeal prince Vijay and his followers and the doctrine that is to endure in Lanka for a full five thousand years’.

It should be noted that in Buddhist scriptures, Buddha has never mentioned about any Hindu/Brahmanical Gods, he only talks about Devas and Bramahas from different worlds who have no connection with any Hindu/Brahmanical Gods.

Jathika Chintanaya (Mahavamsa mindset) and its consequences

Ven. Mahanama has created an imaginary link between the three elements, Country-Race-Religion and made it into one unit similar to the Holy Trinity, whereby Sri Lanka (Dhamma Deepa), Buddha’s chosen people (Sinhalese), and Buddhism (Buddha Sasana) should be protected for 5000 years. This is known as the Jathika chintanaya or the Mahavamsa mindset and its outcome is the ‘Sinhala-Budda Deepa’ and ‘unitary state’. Therefore, for the next 2500 years, a Sinhala Buddhist will never allow a federal state or any autonomy for others (non-Sinhala-Buddhists) in Sri Lanka.

What we witness today is a kind of political Buddhism trying to promote the interests of the Sinhala-Buddhist people, rather than religion (Buddhism) as a path for personal salvation, and it is the main impediment to peace in the Island of Sri Lanka because it is based on the doctrine of primacy and superiority of the Sinhala race and the Buddhist religion.

From a very young age, the innocent Sinhala Buddhist children who attend the Daham Paasela (Sunday school) in the Buddhist temples are brainwashed by engraving the Mahavamsa Buddhism and Sinhala Buddhist racism into their sub-conscious minds. They are taught to believe that the non-Sinhala Buddhists (Tamils) are invaders who do not belong to Sri Lanka. All the Tamils should be chased away to Tamil Nadu just the way their ancient Kings Dutugemunu did. The country (Sri Lanka), Sinhala race and Buddhism should be protected from the Tamils. Now, from recently, they have also included the Christians in those needing to be thrown out. Due to the above conditioning, the Sinhala-Buddhist majority believes that the entire Sri Lanka belongs to them and the minorities are aliens.

One good example is the former Army Chief Lt.-Gen. Sarath Fonseka who once said that he strongly believes that Sri Lanka belongs to the Sinhalese, the minorities can live in the country with them (Sinhalese) but they must not try to demand undue things. This is the common understanding/belief not only among the Sinhalese masses (both educated and uneducated) and the Buddhist clergy but also among the Sinhalese political leaders right from the top as we see from the Sinhala Only Act in 1956, the Sinhala-Only (sri) vehicle license-plates policy in 1958 (have we learned anything from its aftermath that has ruined the country for many decades?) and the recent proposal to scrap the Tamil version of the national anthem and have a Sinhala-Only National Anthem, but unlike the former army chief, these politicians are extra careful when uttering in public due to diplomacy.

Coming out of ignorance

In Sri Lanka, the history is already twisted many centuries ago and sealed. What we have is not history but his-story (Ven. Mahanama’s story). Today the myth has become the truth and if anybody tries to undo the twist (after enormous amount of new discoveries) he/she will be considered an unpatriotic traitor or even a ‘terrorist supporter’. Some of the new archaeological discoveries (artefacts) which are not in favour of the Mahavamsa mythology are either hidden (not allowed to reveal the facts) or they are made to disappear by none other than the governing authorities in order to keep the majority community happy.

For example, the archaeologist Prof. Senerath Paranawithana being a non-Buddhist had to come up with magical evidence from his research to prove the accuracy of the stories in the Mahavamsa (misinterpret as true history). Once when he deviated (by saying the truth that Buddha never visited the island) he was forced to deny.

During that turbulent period (when Buddhism was under threat), the Mahavamsa author Ven. Mahanama and the Mahavihara monks had a genuine reason for the above mythology but unfortunately today due to ignorance and lack of rational thinking, the Sinhala Buddhists still believe the Mahavamsa as the gospel truth.

As long as the Sinhalese remain ignorant, as long as they cling on to the 2500 years old mysteries of the past as their guide, as long as they remain engrossed to the Mahavamsa mindset, whatever solution the that the government tries/pretends to bring in, the Sinhala-Buddhists are not going to accept. Scholars and analysts have identified that the ‘Sinhala (Mahavamsa) Buddhist mindset,’ (about the Sinhala Buddhist claim to the whole island of Lanka), as the reason why most of the Sinhalese cannot be rational and liberal.

The so called Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) should have understood by now that the first lesson and most probably the only important lesson that the Sinhala majority has to learn in order to come out from their ignorance is to differentiate/distinguish between Sinhala and Sri Lanka. Only when the Sinhalese clearly understand that Sinhala-ness and Sri Lankan-ness are not the same but two different things, we will be able to see some light at the end of the tunnel (peace will prevail) and the Sri Lankan Tamils will be able to give up their demands and unite as one Sri Lankan nation.

As responsible leaders, not only the government and the opposition but the moderate Sinhala media personnel, educated and intelligent Sinhalese people and moderate religious leaders/Buddhist clergy should educate the Sinhala nation to think rationally and distinguish/differentiate Sinhala from Sri Lanka, Buddhism from Sinhala-Buddhism, and Myths from Facts, explaining the reason why the Pali chronicles were written during that period of extreme danger to Buddhism, which is not the case today.

Retrieved from “http://www.articlesbase.com/non-fiction-articles/from-barbaric-sinhala-buddhism-to-civilized-buddhism-3897195.html”
(ArticlesBase SC #3897195)

Published: December 31, 2010

Printer-friendly version

Discuss this article (3 posts)

I

comments (0)
link between Buddha Dhamma Sangha and tamil sangam era
Filed under: General
Posted by: site admin @ 8:54 pm

https://www.sangam.org/2010/12/Tamil_Buddhists.php?uid=4177

link between Buddha Dhamma Sangha and tamil sangam era

Ilankai Tamil Sangam

24th Year on the Web
Association of Tamils of Sri Lanka in the USA

Home
Archives
The Tamil Buddhists of the Past and the Future

by J.L. Devananda, ArticlesBase, October 4, 2010

The remains of a Buddhist monastery excavated at Kaveripattinum which could be assigned to the fourth century are believed to be the earliest archaeological relics of Buddhism in Tamil Nadu. The major urban centers of Kanchipuram, Kaveripattinam, Uragapura (Uraiyur), and Madurai were not only centers of Buddhism, but these were also important centers of Pali learning…

The situation in Tamil Nadu, however, began to change towards the beginning of the 7th Century AD when the rise of Vaishnavism and Saivism posed a serious challenge to Buddhism and Jainism.

In his keynote address at the 2554th Vesak (Vaishakha Purnim) celebrations at the Mahabodhi Society in Chennai, Prof. Sunil Ariyaratne, University of Sri Jayawardenapura, Sri Lanka said, “As we are nearing 2600 Buddha Jayanthi, as a Sinhala Buddhist, this is my humble dream for the future: Tamil Buddhist temples should come up in Sri Lanka; Tamil children should embrace Buddhist monkhood; Buddhism must be taught in Tamil; preaching and worshipping Buddhism in Tamil; Tamil Bikkus should have Sinhala followers and Tamil Bhikkus must visit Sinhala homes. That togetherness should be there.”

This sounds somewhat similar to the famous speech “I have a Dream” by Martin Luther King, Jr in 1963 from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial during the march for freedom at Washington. The only difference is Prof. Sunil Ariyaratne’s dream of Tamil Buddhism in Sri Lanka in the future had already existed in the past.

Ancient Buddhist links between Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka

Today, the Palk Strait which lies between Tamil Nadu and Sri Lankan land masses, is seen as a divider, separating two different distinct ethnicities, religions, cultures and political entities but there was a phase in history when Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka enjoyed very close ties, thanks to a shared interest in Buddhism. During the early period, the Palk Strait was not seen as a divider but it was a unifier. At that time Buddhism was a bridge between Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu. The fascinating story of the historical links - Golden threads between Buddhism in Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka was narrated by Dr. Shu Hikosake, Director and Professor of Buddhism, Institute of Asian Studies in Madras in his book 1989 Buddhism in Tamil Nadu: a New Perspective. Dr. Hikosaka’s study is based on his doctoral dissertation.

The earliest inscriptions in Tamil Nadu written in the Brahmi character of the time, on the walls of the natural caves in the Tamil districts of Madura, Ramnad and Tirnnelveli belongs to the third century BC. They are of considerable interest to students of South Indian Buddhism. It is learnt from these Brahmi inscriptions, that Buddhism had come into Tamil Nadu even then. However, the epigraphical evidence seems to confirm that, it was to King Asoka and the missionary monk Mahinda (believed to be his son) that the introduction of Buddhism into Tamil Nadu may be attributed. In his Rock-Edict No. III, King Asoka says that his Dharma Vijaya prevailed in the kingdoms of the Colas, Pandyans and at Tambapanni (Sri Lanka). Particularly the edict number XIII found near Peshawar, there is reference to the Buddhist missions of Asoka. Among the countries referred to are Cola, Pandya, and Tambapanni. This inscription was written in 258 B.C. and is direct evidence of the Buddhist missions of Asoka to the Tamil country and Sri Lanka even though it does not mention about his son Mahinda. As Buddhist missions to Sri Lanka had to come by way of South India, the spread of Buddhism in Sri Lanka and South India in the 2nd century AD should be considered contemporary events, but it was King Asoka’s son Mahinda who was responsible for the introduction of Buddhism in Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka. Mahinda is said to have erected seven viharas at Kaveripattinum, the capital of Cola while he was on his way to Sri Lanka. According to Dr. Hikosaka, contrary to the general impression, Buddhism might have gone to Sri Lanka from Tamil Nadu by sea-route, a route by which one can reach Sri Lanka easily. Since there existed very close cultural affinities between Sri Lanka and the Tamil country from time immemorial, the Buddhist activities in India could have easily influenced in some way or other the Buddhism of Sri Lanka, says Dr. Hikosaka.

Even though it is believed that Buddha had visited this region, South India (Andhra) and Sri Lanka, according to historians, Buddhism began to make a strong impact on Tamil Nadu only in the 3rd century AD. During that period Buddhism had spread widely in Tamil Nadu and won the patronage of the rulers. The remains of a Buddhist monastery excavated at Kaveripattinum which could be assigned to the fourth century are believed to be the earliest archaeological relics of Buddhism in Tamil Nadu. The major urban centers of Kanchipuram, Kaveripattinam, Uragapura (Uraiyur), and Madurai were not only centers of Buddhism, but these were also important centers of Pali learning. The other minor towns of Tamil country where Buddhism was active were Buddhamangalam, Sanghamangalam, Kumbakonam, Mayurapattanam, Alamkudipatti, Kuvam, Sanghamangai, Tiruppadirippuliyur, and so on.

Tamil Buddhists contribute to Buddhist scriptures

It was at this time that Tamil Nadu gave some of its greatest scholars (both Theravada and Mahayana) to the Buddhist world. Tamil Nadu boasted of outstanding Buddhist monks, who had made remarkable contributions to Buddhist thought and learning. Three of the greatest Pali scholars of this period were Buddhaghosa, Buddhadatta, and Dhammapala and all three of them were associated with Buddhist establishments in the Tamil kingdoms.

Buddhadatta or Thera Buddhaatta as he is called lived during the time of Accyutarikkanta, the Kalabra ruler of the Cola-Nadu; was a senior contemporary of Buddhaghosa. He was born in the Cola kingdom and lived in the 5th Century AD. Under the patronage of this ruler, Buddhadatta wrote many books. Among his best known Pali writings are the Vinaya-Vinicchaya, the Uttara-Vinicchaya and the Jinalankara-Kavya. Among the commentaries written by him are the Madhurattha-Vilasini and the Abhidhammavatara. In the Abhidhammaratara he gives a glowing account at Kaveripattinum, Uragapuram, Bhutamangalam and Kanchipuram and the Mahavihara at Anuradapura, (Sri Lanka). While he was at Sri Lanka, he composed many Buddhist works such as Uttara-viniccaya Ruparupa Vibhaga Jinalankara etc. Buddhaghosha, contemporary of Buddhadatta also composed many Buddhist commentaries.

Buddhaghosha is a Tamil monk, who made a remarkable contribution to Buddhism in Sri Lanka. He stayed and studied Buddhist precepts at Mahavihara in Anuradhapura. The Visuddhimagga was the first work of Buddhaghosha which was written while he was in Sri Lanka.

After Buddhaghosha, the important Theravada monk from the Tamil country was Dhammapala. Dhammapala lived in the Mahavihara at Anuradhapura. He composed paramathadipani which was a commentary on Buddhaghosha’s work on Khuddaka Nikaya and Paramathamanjusa, which was a commentary on Buddhaghosha’s Visuddhimagga. A close study of the three Buddhist monks viz Buddhadatta, Buddhaghosha and Dhammapala shows that Tamil Buddhists were closely associated with the Sri Lankan Buddhists around the 5th century AD.

The author of Nettipakarana is another Dhammapala who was a resident of a monastery in Nagapattinam, another important Buddhist centre from ancient times. One more example is the Cola monk Kassapa, in his Pali work, Vimatti-Vinodani, this Tamil monk provides interesting information about the rise of heretical views in the Cola Sangha and the consequent purification that took place. There are so many other Tamil monks who are attributed to the Pali works some of them were resident at Mayura-rupa-pattana (Mylapore, Madras) along with Buddhagosha.

The Tamil Buddhist monks used Pali languages in preference to Tamil in their writings. This is because the Buddha spoke in Magadi Prakrit (Pali). Sanskrit is the sacred language of the Hindus, and similarly Pali is considered as the sacred language of the Buddhists. The well known Tamil Buddhist epics found were Manimekalai, Silappadhikaram, Valaiyapathi, Kundalakesi, and Jivaka Cintamani. Manimekalai, a purely Buddhist work of the 3rd Sangam period in Tamil literature is the most supreme and famous among the Buddhist work done in Tamil Nadu. It is a work expounding the doctrines and propagating the values of Buddhism. The interaction between Tamil Nadu and Sri Lankan monks finds mention in Manimekalai, which is set in the Tamil towns of Kaveipumpattinam, Kanchi, and Vanchi. There is mention about the presence of wondering monks of Sri Lanka in Vanchi, which was the capital of the Chera Kings of Tamil Nadu. The Chinese traveller, Tsuan Tsang, wrote that there were around 300 Sri Lankan monks in the monastery at the Southern sector of Kanchipuram. Ancient Kanchipuram, the capital of Tondaimandalam, ruled by the Tamil Pallava dynasty, an offshoot of Chola rulers was the major seat of Tamil learning and is also known as the city of thousand temples. Even Thirukkural, the ancient Tamil couplets/aphorisms celebrated by Tamils is based on Buddhist principals. Although Buddhism has become almost extinct from Tamil Nadu, it has contributed a great deal to the enrichment of Tamil culture and has exerted a significant influence, both directly and indirectly, on the Tamil religious and spiritual consciousness, present as well as past.

Tamil Buddhism in Sri Lanka

As Buddhism was one of the dominant religions in both Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka, naturally there were very close relations between the two regions. The monks from Sri Lanka, too, went across to the Tamil kingdom and stayed in the monasteries. As Dr. Leslie Gunawardana says, `The co-operation between the Buddhist Sangha of South India and Sri Lanka produced important results which are evident in the Pali works of this period`. He also says that the Tamil Buddhist monks were more orthodox than their counterparts in Sri Lanka. Indeed, the relations between the Tamil and Sinhala Buddhist monks were so close that the latter sought the assistance of the former in political turmoil.

In Sri Lanka, the Tamil Buddhists who followed Theravada Buddhism shared the common places of worship with the Sinhalese, but there were also Tamil Buddhists who were following the Mahayana Buddhism and they had their own Mahayana temples. There are still some Tamil Mahayana Buddhist establishments (Palli) in the east and possibly in the Jaffna peninsula. The best known was Velgam Vehera (see details below), which was renamed Rajaraja-perumpalli after the Cola emperor. Another was the Vikkirama-calamekan-perumpalli.

Some ten miles northwest of Trincomalee off the Trincomalee - Horowupothana road is an ancient Buddhist shrine with origins dating back to the years before the second century. It is a historical fact that among the many ancient Buddhist shrines in Sri Lanka Velgam Vehera which was renamed Rajaraja-perumpalli, also called Natanar Kovil by the present day Tamils stands out as the only known example of a `Tamil Vihare or Buddhist Palli` or as the late Dr. Senerath Paranavithana described it in his book `Glimpses of Ceylon`s Past` as an `Ancient Buddhist shrine of the Tamil people`. Some of the Tamil inscriptions found at the site record donations to this shrine and are dated in the reigns of the Chola Kings, Rajaraja and Rajendradeva. It was his view that the date of the original foundation of the vihare was no doubt considerably earlier than the reign of King Bhatika Tissa II.

The situation in Tamil Nadu, however, began to change towards the beginning of the 7th Century AD when the rise of Vaishnavism and Saivism posed a serious challenge to Buddhism and Jainism. There was a significant increase in Hindu/Brahmanical influence and soon the worship of Siva and Visnu began to gain prominence. The Buddhist and Jaina institutions in Tamil Nadu came under attack when they began to lose popular support and the patronage from the rulers. One result of this was the migration of Buddhist and Jaina monks and devoted lay members to kingdoms where they could find refuge. While the Jainas and Buddhists (mostly Mahayana) were able to go to Kannada and Andhra/Telugu regions, a large part of the Buddhists (Theravada) turned to Sri Lanka and assimilated with the local Buddhist population.

Mahavihara monks of Anuradapura and the Pali chronicles

Although Buddhism flourished in South India in ancient times, the 5th century AD Pali chronicles such as the Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa written by the Mahavihara monks of Anuradapura (Sri Lanka) remained silent about the introduction of Buddhism to South India. This is because, when Hindu/Brahmanism started reappearing in India and posed a threat to Buddhism, the Mahavihara monks of Anuradapura (Sri Lanka) due to their strong devotion to Buddhism and desire to consolidate and protect this religion in Sri Lanka wrote the Pali chronicles Deepavamsa/Mahavamsa just to glorify Buddhism and the Buddhist kings of Sri Lanka and not to record objectively what happened. The `Lion Ancestry` and the myths about the origin of the Sinhala race as pre-destined, true custodians of the island of Sri Lanka and guardians of Buddhism is a myth of the creative authors to protect Buddhism and is not the common true history. The ancient Sri Lankan Kingdom (Anuradapura) was ruled by both Buddhist and Hindu kings. There is no evidence what so ever to prove that they were Sinhala. The arrival of prince Vijaya and 700 men from North India is only a myth. All those Buddhist Kings of Anuradapura whom we believe today as Sinhala-Buddhists are of Tamil origin. Sinhala language is nothing but a hybrid of Sanskrit, Tamil and Pali. An analysis of the Pali chronicles (Deepavamsa/Mahavamsa) makes it very clear that the Mahavihara monks who authored them in the 5th century AD have created the ethnic identity Sinhala, yoked it with Buddhism and created a new ethno-religious identity in Sri Lanka known as Sinhala-Buddhist to sustain the religion in the country for 5000 years.

The ancient Brahmi inscriptions (before 7th century AD) in Tamil Nadu are in old Tamil where the Tamil names did not end with an ‘N’ or an ‘M’, but were very similar to those Sanskrit/Pali names. It was only after the 7th century AD, that the Tamil language adopted some changes to its Grammar, script, etc. and evolved into the present form. This might have happened after the Tamils developing what is commonly called as the pulli (dot) system which is peculiar to Tamils in particular among the Indian languages and due to this dot system the words/names ending with ‘A’ ends up with ‘N’ and ‘M’. This is the reason why, in the Pali chronicles and in the Brahmi stone inscriptions the names of the Tamil Kings of Anuradhapura were referred to as Sena, Guttika, Elara, Pulahatha, Bahiya, Panayamara, Parinda, Dathiya, etc and not as Senan, Guttikan, Ellalan, etc. Similarly in Tamil Nadu, the names of the ancient kings were referred to as Kulothunga Chola, Vikrma Chola, Aditya Chola, Kulasekara Pandya, Vira Wickrama Pandya, Parakrama Pandya, Sundara Pandya, etc.

It is believed that most of the Tamil Buddhist literary work has been destroyed during religious controversies. The loss of Tamil Buddhist literature was a death blow to Tamil Buddhism. Apart from the Brahmi inscriptions and other archeological evidence found in Tamil Nadu and the available Tamil literary works, the Rock-Edicts of King Asoka also sheds much light on this subject. Even though the Pali chronicles did not mention the ethnic background of the ancient Sri Lankan Buddhists and the Buddhist kings right from Devanampiya Tissa, the Mahavamsa referred to the Non-Buddhist kings as Tamils (invaders). The above facts and the non-existence of Tamil Buddhists during the colonial period (due to the 10th century Chola invasion) led the 19th century European Pali scholars who translated the Pali chronicles to assume and subsequently the present day Sri Lankans to believe that the ancient Buddhists and the Buddhists Kings of Sri Lanka were Sinhalese.

Unfortunately, today there are no Tamil Buddhists in Sri Lanka but the majority of the early Tamils of Sri Lanka (before the 10th century Chola invasion) were Buddhists. The ancient Buddhist remains in the North and East of Sri Lanka are the remnants left by the Tamil Buddhists and not anybody else. They are part of the heritage of Sri Lankan Tamils. Only the Buddhist temples, statues and structures build in the recent past and present in the North and East remain as Sinhala-Buddhist.

Important Questions

The questions still remain, why are the Sri Lankans ignorant of their past or rather, why is the Sri Lanka’s past hidden from its own people? Why do the Sri Lankans believe that the Buddhist sites in Sri Lanka belong only to the Sinhalese (Sinhala heritage) and not to the Tamils? Why are the Sri Lankans ignorant about the early Tamil Buddhists of Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu? Why do the Sri Lankans think, in Sri Lanka a Buddhist should be a Sinhalese and a Hindu should be a Tamil while the Sinhalese worship most of the Hindu/Brahmanical Gods? Why do most Sinhala-Buddhists believe that they are blood relatives of Lord Buddha (Sakya clan)? Why are the Sinhalese so ignorant to believe that the Tamils in Sri Lanka are either invaders or brought by the colonial rulers?

Not only the Indians but even the Sri Lankan Tamils gave up Buddhism and accepted Hinduism. For them to go back to Buddhism, has 2500 years of Buddhism in Sri Lanka (the so called Dhammadveepa) influenced any major changes in the Sinhala society (the so called guardians of Buddhism chosen by none other than the Buddha) in terms of attitude, character, behavior, morality and so on or has it failed miserably? Are the Buddhist monks practicing Ahimsa (non-violence), Karuna (compassion), Metta (affection), and Maithriya (loving-kindness) towards fellow humans (irrespective of race/religion) or are they in the name of Buddhism promoting ethno-religious chauvinism and hatred?

Buddhism in Sri Lanka is monopolized by the Sinhalese and they call it Sinhala-Buddhism which is Theravada Buddhism (Tripitaka) mixed up with the Mahavamsa. Will the Sinhala-Buddhist Maha Sangha accept any Tamil Buddhist monks? Will the Tamils accept Mahavamsa as a part of Buddhism or Buddhist history knowing very well that it is a Sinhala-Buddhist mythology?

Prof. Sunil Ariyaratne’s dream of future Tamil Buddhists is very genuine and apt during this period. As he says, it may recreate the togetherness, the common bond that once existed between the Sinhalese and Tamils. It will not be a surprise if Nanda Malini sings about the Damila Buddhayo of the past and the future but can his dream materialize? Of course, miracles do happen; Martin Luther King Junior’s dream came true so let us have some hope.

Retrieved from “http://www.articlesbase.com/culture-articles/the-tamil-buddhists-of-the-past-and-the-future-3402500.html”
(ArticlesBase SC #3402500)

—————————————————————————-

From Barbaric Sinhala-Buddhism to Civilized Buddhism

by J.L. Devananda, ArticlesBase, December 22, 2010

The Buddhism practiced in Sri Lanka, better known as Sinhala-Buddhism (or Mahavamsa-Buddhism) is different from the Theravada Buddhism practiced in other countries such as Thailand, Cambodia and so on. The Buddhists in these countries follow only the Buddhist scriptures Tripitaka (Viniya, Sutta, Abhidhamma), whereas in Sri Lanka the ‘Mahavamsa,’ which was written by one of the Mahavihara monks (Ven. Mahanama) more than 1000 years after the passing away of Lord Buddha is also considered as a part of the Buddhist scriptures, although it deals mostly with mythical or supernatural Buddhist history, some episodes of which are copied from the ‘Mahabaratha’ and ‘Ramayana.’ Since the Buddhist scriptures (Tripitaka) and the mythical Buddhist history (Mahavamsa) were both written in the Pali language, a Buddhist layperson who does not understand Pali cannot understand the difference between the two and, therefore, he/she believes everything that the Buddhist monks preach, to be the true words of Buddha.

Due to ignorance, even the present day Sinhala-Buddhists still believe that they are blood relatives of Buddha because, according to the Mahavamsa, their forefather Pandu-Vasudeva belongs to the Sakya clan, and is a relative of the Buddha where as the historians believe that the term ‘Pandu’ in Pali means Pandyans.

According to Buddhism, a person ordained as a Bikkhu should practice Ahimsa (non-violence), Karuna (compassion), Metta (affection), and Maithriya (loving-kindness) towards fellow humans, (irrespective of race or religion), not only by words but also in his thoughts and action. Unfortunately in Sri Lanka, due to the influence of the Mahavamsa, a Buddhist Bikkhu is at liberty to engage in racist politics and promote Sinhala-Buddhist chauvinism and hatred, as we see today.

Protecting Buddhism

There was NO Buddhism in Sri Lanka until Emperor Asoka’s missionary monks led by Mahinda converted the Hindu (Siva worshipping) Naga King Tissa into a Buddhist in the 2nd century BC. Similarly, there was NO Sinhala race/tribe in Sri Lanka until the Mahavihara monks created it in the 5th century AD. When Hindu/Brahmanical influence posed a serious challenge to Buddhism and when Buddhism started to lose popular support and the patronage from the rulers, the Buddhist institutions in India came under attack. The Mahavihara monks of Anuradapura including Ven. Mahanama, the author of the Pali chronicle Mahavamsa and a close relative of the Buddhist Naga king Dhatusena witnessed the decline and disorientation of Buddhism in India. The events that took place in India against Buddhism must have prompted the Mahavihara monks in Sri Lanka to come up with a plan/strategy to protect Buddhism. Due to their strong devotion to Buddhism and desire to consolidate and protect this religion in Sri Lanka they have decided to write the Pali chronicles Deepavamsa/Mahavamsa making Sri Lanka a Dammadeepa/Sinhaladvipa (chosen land of Buddha where Buddhism will prevail for 5000 years) and creating the Sinhala race by integrating all the Buddhists from different tribes/ethnic groups into one race and making them the sustainers of Buddhism (Gautama Buddha’s chosen people) to protect Buddhism in Sri Lanka for 5000 years until the next Maithriya Buddha arrive. With the patronage of the Buddhist Kings, it is the Mahavihara monks who assimilated all the Buddhists from many different tribes together and called them Sihala (followers of Mythical Vijaya). There may have been instances where the convicted criminals from India (Bengal/Gujarat) who were exiled would have sleeked asylum in the island and would have been allowed to settle and got assimilated with the local population, but there is NO historical evidence what so ever to prove Vijaya’s arrival with 700 men or to say there were Sinhalese during the Early Historic period. The term ‘Sihala’ itself first appeared ONLY in the 5th Century AD Pali chronicles Deepavamsa/Mahavamsa and that also ONLY twice in the beginning chapters. To date, no archaeological evidence has been found to prove ‘Hela’ or ‘Sihala’ or ‘Sinhala’ existed before that or anything about Vijaya’s arrival. Only the Mahavamsa Tika that was composed very much later to interpret the Mahavamsa, mentions that it was adopted from the mysterycal ‘Vamsa texts’ known as ‘Sihala Atthakatha’ (collection of Sinhala verbal stories). Very strangely, most of the mythical/supernatural stories from the so called ‘Sihala Atthakatha Vamsa texts’ are very similar to those found in the Indian Epics and Puranas such as the Mahabaratha/Ramayana. Ultimately, the Mahavamsa has transformed the Buddha into a special patron of Sinhala-Buddhism, an ethnic religion created in Sri Lanka.

Sinhala and Damela

There are enough of ancient archaeological evidence in Sri Lanka such as Brahmi stone inscriptions, cave writings, Pali chronicles, etc where the terms ‘Dameda’, ‘Damela’, ‘Damila’, ‘Demel’ are mentioned as a group of people living in the island. Even in the Jataka stories such as Akitti Jataka, there is a reference to Tamil country (Damila-rattha), where as there is NO evidence what so ever about the terms ‘Hela’, ‘Sihala’, ‘Sinhala’ before and even a few centuries after the Pali chronicles were written. Even the Mahavamsa says, the missionary monk Mahinda Maha Thero preached Buddhism to the people of the island in Deepa basa (language of the island) but it does not say that the deepa basa was ‘Elu’ or ‘Helu’ or ‘Sihala’.

Some Sinhala scholars have a weak argument for the above. They argue that the ethnic name of the dominant group does not occur in these records for the very good reason that there is no need to distinguish any person by referring to him/her as such when the people as a whole are entitled to that name (Sihala). The million dollar question is why it is not the case now because today they are actually the dominant ethnic group? (How they became a majority is another subject but I will briefly mention below). Today, leave aside the major things like medicine, etc, even the smallest stuff like roof tiles are labelled after ‘Sinhala’.

The above argument could have been accepted if the terms ‘Hela’, ‘Sihala’, ‘Sinhala’ was found at least somewhere outside Sri Lanka such as in any of the ancient literary works and/or the stone inscriptions/rock edicts of neighbouring India (either South or North) that was always associated with the island’s history, but unfortunately nothing has been found until now.

The kingdoms of Anuradapura and Polonnaruwa were NEVER known as Sinhala kingdoms and the Naga and Tamil kings who ruled these kingdoms never called themselves ‘Hela’, ‘Sihala’, or ‘Sinhala’. There is no evidence to prove that the Nagas were Sinhalese or they became Sinhalese. Subsequent to the Cola domination of Sri Lanka in the 10th century A.D, people who identified themselves as Buddhists and Sinhalese shifted their seats of rule from the ancient kingdoms of Anuradapura and Polanaruwa towards South and Central Sri Lanka while the people who identified themselves as Hindus (Saiva) and Tamils moved their ruling structures from these same regions to the North and East of the island. It was only after the 13th century AD that the kingdoms of Kotte and Kandy were known as ‘Sinhale’ even though some parts of the Tamil areas in North and East also came under the Kandyan rule but Kandy was mostly ruled by the Kalingas of South-East India and the Nayakkars of South India with whom the Tamils did not have any problems. Also, the term ‘Sinhale’, appeared only in the 13th Century AD Chulavamsa and NOT in Deepavamsa/Mahavamsa.

In the 16th century, the Portuguese and in the 18th century, the Dutch who occupied the island brought in tens of thousands of people from South India (presently Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andara) and settled them in the Southern parts of the island as menial labourers (for growing/peeling cinnamon, fishing/pearl diving, coconut planting/plucking, toddy tapping, and for many other jobs). Within a few centuries, the Sinhala population increased exponentially when these people assimilated with the local Sinhala population by adopting the Sinhala language and the Buddhist religion. Today their decedents (6th generation) are not only claiming the ancient Sri Lankan civilization as their own ‘Sinhala’ heritage but have also become the patriots and champions of Sinhala-Buddhist chauvinism.

It was the British who re-discovered the Mahavamsa in the early 20th century and their so called European ‘Pali Scholars’ misinterpreted it, thereby creating another myth known as Arya-Sinhala. Since the Sinhala (Elu) language (mixture of Sanskrit, Pali and Tamil/Malayalam) was more of Indo-Aryan in nature, the British declared that the Sinhalese were Aryans from North India and the Tamils were Dravidians from South India. Influenced by the colonial historiography, the Sinhalese declared that they were indigenous to the island, and that the Tamils were invaders from South India.

Mahavamsa Mythology

It is said in MAHAVAMSA CHAPTER VII - THE CONSECRATING OF VIJAYA,
**But the king Sihabahu, since he had slain the lion (was called) Sihala and, by reason of the ties between him and them, all those (followers of VIJAYA) were also (called) Sihala.**

If Sihabahu whose father had slain the lion was called Sihala and his eldest son Vijaya and his followers were also called Sihala, then what about Vijaya’s twin brother Sumitta and his followers in Sinhapura, India? Why they were not called Sihala? That itself proves that Vijaya and the Sinhala race was a creation of Ven. Mahanama and the Mahavihara monks.

Another good example of the myths, fantasies, superstitions and fables from the Mahavamsa is the Elara/Dutugemunu episode. Just around ten lines/verses in the Pali chronicle Deepavamsa about the Elara/Dutugemunu was blown up into 11 chapters in the Mahavamsa just to glorify Buddhism and the Buddhist kings against the Hindus which gave birth to “superior race”, “Bhoomiputhra (sons of the soil)”, “Sinhaladivpa” “unitary state” and “Dhammadivpa” theories. The Mahavamsa author being a Buddhist monk and justifying the killing of around sixty thousand Tamils/Hindus (aka invaders) by Dutugemunu is one reason why others (non-Buddhists) think that Sinhala-Buddhism is somewhat of a violent barbaric form of Buddhism where killing Tamils is justified. The killing of Tamils in Sri Lanka by the Sinhala-Buddhists even today is due to this uncivilized and barbaric ehhno-religion known as Sinhala-Buddhism (or Mahavamsa-Buddhism).

There is a clear record of all the main events of Buddha, the places he visited, with whom he was, where and what he preached and to whom he preached, in the Buddhist scriptures Tripitika, but nowhere it is mentioned that the Buddha visited or even spoke about the island of Lanka. In order to protect Buddhism in Sri Lanka from those powerful South Indian Hindu kingdoms, Ven. Mahanama wrote the Mahavamsa, by added his own imaginations and myths. He has introduced many events concerning Buddha which never took place, things that Buddha has never said or done, events which are not mentioned in any of the Buddhist scriptures (both Theravada and Mahayana).

For example, according to the Mahavamsa, Buddha made three magical trips to Sri Lanka, each time colonizing another area of the island, in preparation for the formal introduction of Buddhism two centuries after his death. One of these trips was to settle a dispute between the Yakkhas and Nagas at Naga Divipa (Ninathivu) where the Buddha tamed the Yakkhas, the non-human inhabitants of the island.

There is no evidence whatsoever to support this claim (Buddha’s 3 visits), other than the three chaithiyas (Buddhist structures) built in the recent past by the Sinhalese Buddhists at 3 different locations to say, ‘This is where Buddha came.’ Even the footprint of Buddha at Sri Pada (Adam’s peak) is nothing but an obvious myth.

According to the Mahavamsa, just before passing away, Buddha has called the Sakka (King of Gods) and told him,

‘My doctrine, O Sakka, will eventually be established in the Island of Lanka, and on this day, Vijay the eldest son of Singha Bahu king of Sinhapura in the Lata country lands there with 700 followers and will assume sovereignty there. Do thou, therefore guard well the prince and his train and the Island of Lanka. On receiving the blessed one’s command, Sakka summoned God Vishnu and said, ‘Do thou. O lotus-hued one, protect with zeal prince Vijay and his followers and the doctrine that is to endure in Lanka for a full five thousand years’.

It should be noted that in Buddhist scriptures, Buddha has never mentioned about any Hindu/Brahmanical Gods, he only talks about Devas and Bramahas from different worlds who have no connection with any Hindu/Brahmanical Gods.

Jathika Chintanaya (Mahavamsa mindset) and its consequences

Ven. Mahanama has created an imaginary link between the three elements, Country-Race-Religion and made it into one unit similar to the Holy Trinity, whereby Sri Lanka (Dhamma Deepa), Buddha’s chosen people (Sinhalese), and Buddhism (Buddha Sasana) should be protected for 5000 years. This is known as the Jathika chintanaya or the Mahavamsa mindset and its outcome is the ‘Sinhala-Budda Deepa’ and ‘unitary state’. Therefore, for the next 2500 years, a Sinhala Buddhist will never allow a federal state or any autonomy for others (non-Sinhala-Buddhists) in Sri Lanka.

What we witness today is a kind of political Buddhism trying to promote the interests of the Sinhala-Buddhist people, rather than religion (Buddhism) as a path for personal salvation, and it is the main impediment to peace in the Island of Sri Lanka because it is based on the doctrine of primacy and superiority of the Sinhala race and the Buddhist religion.

From a very young age, the innocent Sinhala Buddhist children who attend the Daham Paasela (Sunday school) in the Buddhist temples are brainwashed by engraving the Mahavamsa Buddhism and Sinhala Buddhist racism into their sub-conscious minds. They are taught to believe that the non-Sinhala Buddhists (Tamils) are invaders who do not belong to Sri Lanka. All the Tamils should be chased away to Tamil Nadu just the way their ancient Kings Dutugemunu did. The country (Sri Lanka), Sinhala race and Buddhism should be protected from the Tamils. Now, from recently, they have also included the Christians in those needing to be thrown out. Due to the above conditioning, the Sinhala-Buddhist majority believes that the entire Sri Lanka belongs to them and the minorities are aliens.

One good example is the former Army Chief Lt.-Gen. Sarath Fonseka who once said that he strongly believes that Sri Lanka belongs to the Sinhalese, the minorities can live in the country with them (Sinhalese) but they must not try to demand undue things. This is the common understanding/belief not only among the Sinhalese masses (both educated and uneducated) and the Buddhist clergy but also among the Sinhalese political leaders right from the top as we see from the Sinhala Only Act in 1956, the Sinhala-Only (sri) vehicle license-plates policy in 1958 (have we learned anything from its aftermath that has ruined the country for many decades?) and the recent proposal to scrap the Tamil version of the national anthem and have a Sinhala-Only National Anthem, but unlike the former army chief, these politicians are extra careful when uttering in public due to diplomacy.

Coming out of ignorance

In Sri Lanka, the history is already twisted many centuries ago and sealed. What we have is not history but his-story (Ven. Mahanama’s story). Today the myth has become the truth and if anybody tries to undo the twist (after enormous amount of new discoveries) he/she will be considered an unpatriotic traitor or even a ‘terrorist supporter’. Some of the new archaeological discoveries (artefacts) which are not in favour of the Mahavamsa mythology are either hidden (not allowed to reveal the facts) or they are made to disappear by none other than the governing authorities in order to keep the majority community happy.

For example, the archaeologist Prof. Senerath Paranawithana being a non-Buddhist had to come up with magical evidence from his research to prove the accuracy of the stories in the Mahavamsa (misinterpret as true history). Once when he deviated (by saying the truth that Buddha never visited the island) he was forced to deny.

During that turbulent period (when Buddhism was under threat), the Mahavamsa author Ven. Mahanama and the Mahavihara monks had a genuine reason for the above mythology but unfortunately today due to ignorance and lack of rational thinking, the Sinhala Buddhists still believe the Mahavamsa as the gospel truth.

As long as the Sinhalese remain ignorant, as long as they cling on to the 2500 years old mysteries of the past as their guide, as long as they remain engrossed to the Mahavamsa mindset, whatever solution the that the government tries/pretends to bring in, the Sinhala-Buddhists are not going to accept. Scholars and analysts have identified that the ‘Sinhala (Mahavamsa) Buddhist mindset,’ (about the Sinhala Buddhist claim to the whole island of Lanka), as the reason why most of the Sinhalese cannot be rational and liberal.

The so called Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) should have understood by now that the first lesson and most probably the only important lesson that the Sinhala majority has to learn in order to come out from their ignorance is to differentiate/distinguish between Sinhala and Sri Lanka. Only when the Sinhalese clearly understand that Sinhala-ness and Sri Lankan-ness are not the same but two different things, we will be able to see some light at the end of the tunnel (peace will prevail) and the Sri Lankan Tamils will be able to give up their demands and unite as one Sri Lankan nation.

As responsible leaders, not only the government and the opposition but the moderate Sinhala media personnel, educated and intelligent Sinhalese people and moderate religious leaders/Buddhist clergy should educate the Sinhala nation to think rationally and distinguish/differentiate Sinhala from Sri Lanka, Buddhism from Sinhala-Buddhism, and Myths from Facts, explaining the reason why the Pali chronicles were written during that period of extreme danger to Buddhism, which is not the case today.

Retrieved from “http://www.articlesbase.com/non-fiction-articles/from-barbaric-sinhala-buddhism-to-civilized-buddhism-3897195.html”
(ArticlesBase SC #3897195)

Published: December 31, 2010

Printer-friendly version

Discuss this article (3 posts)

I

comments (0)
LESSON 3280 Thu 20 Feb 2020 Free Online NIBBANA TRAINING from KUSHINARA NIBBANA BHUMI PAGODA -PATH TO ATTAIN PEACE and ETERNAL BLISS AS FINAL GOAL DO GOOD! PURIFY MIND AND ENVIRONMENT! Even a seven year old can Understand. A seventy year old must practice. VOICE of ALL ABORIGINAL AWAKENED SOCIETIES (VoAAAS) Dr B.R.Ambedkar thundered “Main Bharat Baudhmay karunga.” (I will make India Buddhist) All Aboriginal Awakened Societies Thunder ” Hum Prapanch Prabuddha Bharatmay karunge.” (We will make world Prabuddha Prapanch) Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna Sutta — Attendance on awareness — in 41) Classical Haitian Creole-Klasik kreyòl,
Filed under: General
Posted by: site admin @ 7:07 pm

LESSON 3280 Thu 20 Feb 2020

Free Online NIBBANA TRAINING

from

KUSHINARA NIBBANA BHUMI PAGODA -PATH TO ATTAIN PEACE and ETERNAL BLISS AS FINAL GOAL


VOICE of ALL ABORIGINAL AWAKENED SOCIETIES (VoAAAS)

Dr B.R.Ambedkar thundered “Main Bharat Baudhmay karunga.” (I will make India Buddhist)


All Aboriginal  Awakened Societies Thunder ” Hum Prapanch Prabuddha Bharatmay karunge.” (We will make world Prabuddha Prapanch)


Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna Sutta — Attendance on awareness — in   41) Classical Haitian Creole-Klasik kreyòl,



41) Classical Haitian Creole-Klasik kreyòl,

Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna Sutta - Prezans sou konsyans - ak pi bon imaj Bouda anime nan klasik kreyòl ayisyen-Klasik kreyòl

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqD1-Xi1ioA
Mahasatipatthana Sutta

(9d Yogi
843 abonnés
Chante de Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna Sutta a,
Kategori
Nonprofits & Aktivis
Lisans
Lisans pou Wikimedia Commons Creative (reutilize pèmèt)
Sous videyo
View responsablite
Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna Sutta - Prezans sou konesans —in, 29) Klasik angle, Women,

Sa a sutta lajman konsidere kòm yon referans fondamantal pou pratik meditasyon.
Entwodiksyon

I. Obsèvasyon de Kāya
A. Seksyon sou ānāpāna
B. Seksyon sou posture
C. Seksyon sou sampajañña
D. Seksyon sou repulsiveness
E. Seksyon sou eleman yo
F. Seksyon sou nèf lakou yo menm

II. Obsèvasyon Vedanā

III. Obsèvasyon sou Sitta

IV. Obsèvasyon Dhammas la
A. Seksyon sou Nīvaraṇas yo
B. Seksyon sou Khandhas yo
C. Seksyon sou esfè sans yo
D. Seksyon sou Bojjhaṅgas la
E. seksyon sou verite yo
E1. Ekspozisyon Dukkhasacca
E2. Ekspozisyon Samudayasacca
E3. Ekspozisyon Nirodhasacca
E4. Ekspozisyon Maggasacca

Entwodiksyon

Se konsa mwen te tande:
Nan yon okazyon, Bhagavā a te rete nan mitan Kurus yo nan Kammāsadhamma, yon vil mache nan Kurus yo. Li te adrese bhikkhus la:
- Monchè … - Bhaddante te reponn bhikkhus yo. Bhagavā a te di:
- Sa a, sa a, se chemen ki mennen nan pa gen anyen men pou pirifye nan
èt, simonte nan lapenn ak lamentasyon, disparisyon nan dukkha-domanassa,
reyalizasyon nan chemen ki dwat la, realizasyon an nan Nibbāna, ki vle
di kat satipaṭṭhānas.

Ki kat? Isit la, yon mwayen, yon bhikkhu
rete obsève kāya nan kāya, ātāpī sampajāno, satimā, li te bay moute
abhijjhā-domanassa nan direksyon pou mond lan. Li rete obsève vedanā nan
vedanā, ātāpī sampajāno, satimā, li te bay moute abhijjhā-domanassa nan
direksyon pou mond lan. Li rete obsève sit nan sitta, sampajāno satimā,
satimā, li te bay moute abhijjhā-domanassa nan direksyon pou mond lan.
Li rete obsève dhamma nan nan dhamma, ātāpī sampajāno, satimā, li te bay
abhijjhā-domanassa nan direksyon pou mond lan.

I. Kāyānupassanā

A. Seksyon sou ānāpāna


E ki jan, yon, yon bhikkhu rete obsève kāya nan kāya? Isit la, poupe,
yon moniman, li te ale nan forè a oswa li te ale nan rasin lan nan yon
pyebwa oswa li te ale nan yon chanm vid, chita desann plisman janm
larjer, anviwònman kya dwat, ak mete sati parimukha. Lè sa a, li te
respire, paske li respire. Respirasyon lontan li konprann: ‘Mwen respire
depi lontan’; respire lontan li konprann: ‘mwen respire lontan’;
respire kout li konprann: ‘mwen respire nan kout’; respire kout li
konprann: ‘mwen respire kout’; li antrene tèt li: ’santi tout kāya a,
mwen pral respire’; li antrene tèt li: ’santi tout kāya a, mwen pral
respire’; li fòme tèt li: ‘kalme desann kāya-saṅkhāras la, mwen pral
respire’; li antrene tèt li: ‘kalme desann kāya-saṅkhāras la, mwen pral
respire’.

Menm jan, yon poupe, yon viktim abil oswa yon apranti
yon vire a, ki fè yon vire long, konprann: ‘Mwen fè yon vire long’; fè
yon ti bout tan, li konprann: ‘mwen fè yon ti bout tan’; nan menm fason
an, poupe, yon moniman, respire depi lontan, konprann: ‘mwen respire
lontan’; respire lontan li konprann: ‘mwen respire lontan’; respire kout
li konprann: ‘mwen respire nan kout’; respire kout li konprann: ‘mwen
respire kout’; li antrene tèt li: ’santi tout kāya a, mwen pral
respire’; li antrene tèt li: ’santi tout kāya a, mwen pral respire’; li
fòme tèt li: ‘kalme desann kāya-saṅkhāras la, mwen pral respire’; li
antrene tèt li: ‘kalme desann kāya-saṅkhāras la, mwen pral respire’.


Se konsa, li rete obsève kāya nan kāya intern, oswa li rete obsève kāya
nan kāya deyò, oswa li rete obsève kāya nan kāya intern ak deyò; li
rete obsève samudaya nan fenomèn nan kāya, oswa li rete obsève pase a
nan fenomèn nan kāya, oswa li rete obsève samudaya a ak pase lwen
fenomèn nan kāya; oswa lòt moun, [reyalize:] “sa a se kāya!” sati se
prezan nan li, jis nan limit nan ñāṇa sèlman ak paṭissati sèlman, li
rete detache, epi yo pa rete kole sou anyen nan mond lan. Se konsa,
poupe, yon bhikkhu abite obsève kāya nan kāya.

B. Seksyon sou posture


Anplis de sa, poupe, yon moun ki, pandan y ap mache, konprann: ‘mwen ap
mache’, oswa pandan y ap kanpe li konprann: ‘mwen kanpe’, oswa pandan
li chita li konprann: ‘Mwen chita’, oswa pandan m kouche li konprann: ‘
Mwen kouche ‘. Oswa lòt moun, nan kèlkeswa sa ki pozisyon kāya li
dispoze, li konprann li kòmsadwa.

Se konsa, li rete obsève kāya
nan kāya intern, oswa li rete obsève kāya nan kāya deyò, oswa li rete
obsève kāya nan kāya intern ak deyò; li rete obsève samudaya nan fenomèn
nan kāya, oswa li rete obsève pase a nan fenomèn nan kāya, oswa li rete
obsève samudaya a ak pase lwen fenomèn nan kāya; oswa lòt moun,
[reyalize:] “sa a se kāya!” sati se prezan nan li, jis nan limit nan
ñāṇa sèlman ak paṭissati sèlman, li rete detache, epi yo pa rete kole
sou anyen nan mond lan. Se konsa, poupe, yon bhikkhu abite obsève kāya
nan kāya.

C. Seksyon sou sampajañña

Anplis de sa, poupe,
yon moniman, pandan y ap apwoche ak pandan y ap kite, aji ak sampajañña,
pandan y ap gade devan epi pandan y ap gade toutotou, li aji ak
sampajañña, pandan y ap koube ak pandan y ap etann, li aji ak
sampajañña, pandan y ap mete rad yo anwo ak pandan y ap pote bòl la, li
aji ak sampajañña, pandan y ap manje, pandan y ap bwè, pandan y ap
moulen, pandan y ap gou, li aji ak sampajañña, pandan y ap patisipe nan
biznis la nan defecating ak pipi, li aji ak sampajañña, pandan y ap
mache, pandan y ap kanpe, pandan y ap chita , pandan y ap dòmi, pandan
ke yo te reveye, pandan y ap pale epi pandan ke yo te an silans, li aji
ak sampajañña.

Se konsa, li rete obsève kāya nan kāya intern,
oswa li rete obsève kāya nan kāya deyò, oswa li rete obsève kāya nan
kāya intern ak deyò; li rete obsève samudaya nan fenomèn nan kāya, oswa
li rete obsève pase a nan fenomèn nan kāya, oswa li rete obsève samudaya
a ak pase lwen fenomèn nan kāya; oswa lòt moun, [reyalize:] “sa a se
kāya!” sati se prezan nan li, jis nan limit nan ñāṇa sèlman ak paṭissati
sèlman, li rete detache, epi yo pa rete kole sou anyen nan mond lan. Se
konsa, poupe, yon bhikkhu abite obsève kāya nan kāya.

D. Seksyon sou repiyans


Anplis de sa, yon ti moso, yon bikikhu konsidere kò sa a trè, soti nan
plant yo nan pye yo leve, li soti nan cheve a sou tèt la desann, ki se
limite pa po li yo ak tout kalite divès kalite enpurte: “Nan kāya sa a,
gen cheve nan. nan tèt la, cheve nan kò a, klou, dan, po, vyann, tandon,
zo, mwèl zo, ren, kè, fwa, plèv, larat, poumon, trip, mesentery, vant
ak sa li yo, poupou, kòlè, flèm … , pi, san, swe, grès, dlo nan je,
grès, krache, mikis nan nen, likid sinovyal ak pipi. “

Menm jan
si, si, te gen yon sak ki gen de ouvèti ak plen ak divès kalite grenn
jaden, tankou mòn-Paddy, Paddy, mung pwa, bèf-pwa, grenn wowoli ak chou
diri. Yon nonm ki gen bon vizyon, ki te kase l ‘, ta konsidere [sa li
yo]: “Sa a se mòn-Paddy, sa a se Paddy, sa yo, se mung pwa, sa yo se
bèf-pwa, sa yo, se grenn wowoli ak sa a se diri chou;” nan menm fason
an, poupe, yon bikikou konsidere kò sa a trè, soti nan plant yo nan pye
yo leve, li soti nan cheve a sou tèt la desann, ki se delimitasyon pa po
li yo ak plen nan divès kalite enpurte: “Nan kāya sa a, gen. yo se
cheve nan tèt la, cheve nan kò a, klou, dan, po, kò, tandon, zo, mwèl
zo, ren, kè, fwa, plèv, larat, poumon, trip, mesentery, vant ak sa li
yo, poupou, kòlè, flèm, pi, san, swe, grès, dlo nan je, grès, krache,
glè nan nen, likid sinovyal ak pipi. “

Se konsa, li rete obsève
kāya nan kāya intern, oswa li rete obsève kāya nan kāya deyò, oswa li
rete obsève kāya nan kāya intern ak deyò; li rete obsève samudaya nan
fenomèn nan kāya, oswa li rete obsève pase a nan fenomèn nan kāya, oswa
li rete obsève samudaya a ak pase lwen fenomèn nan kāya; oswa lòt moun,
[reyalize:] “sa a se kāya!” sati se prezan nan li, jis nan limit nan
ñāṇa sèlman ak paṭissati sèlman, li rete detache, epi yo pa rete kole
sou anyen nan mond lan. Se konsa, poupe, yon bhikkhu abite obsève kāya
nan kāya.

E. Seksyon sou eleman yo

Anplis de sa, ansanbl,
yon bhikkhu reflete sou sa a trè kāya, sepandan li se mete, sepandan li
se dispoze kòm ki gen eleman: “Nan kāya sa a, gen eleman nan tè a,
eleman dlo a, eleman nan dife ak eleman nan lè.”

Menm jan,
monwak, yon bouche abil oswa yon apranti bouche a, li te gen yon bèf
touye, ta chita nan yon krwaze semen koupe l ‘an moso; nan menm fason
an, poupe, yon hikchou reflete sou sa a trè kāya, sepandan li se mete,
sepandan li se dispoze: “Nan kāya sa a, gen eleman nan tè a, eleman dlo
a, eleman nan dife ak eleman nan lè.”

Se konsa, li rete obsève
kāya nan kāya intern, oswa li rete obsève kāya nan kāya deyò, oswa li
rete obsève kāya nan kāya intern ak deyò; li rete obsève samudaya nan
fenomèn nan kāya, oswa li rete obsève pase a nan fenomèn nan kāya, oswa
li rete obsève samudaya a ak pase lwen fenomèn nan kāya; oswa lòt moun,
[reyalize:] “sa a se kāya!” sati se prezan nan li, jis nan limit nan
ñāṇa sèlman ak paṭissati sèlman, li rete detache, epi yo pa rete kole
sou anyen nan mond lan. Se konsa, poupe, yon bhikkhu abite obsève kāya
nan kāya.

F. Seksyon sou nèf lakou yo menm

(1)
Anplis
de sa, bhikkhus, yon bhikkhu, menm jan si li te wè yon kadav, jete lwen
nan yon tè zwazo, yon jou mouri, oswa de jou mouri oswa twa jou mouri,
anfle, jan ble ak supuran, li konsidere sa trè kāya: ” Kāya sa a tou se
nan yon nati konsa, li pral vin tankou sa a, epi li pa gratis nan yon
kondisyon konsa. “

Se konsa, li rete obsève kāya nan kāya intern,
oswa li rete obsève kāya nan kāya deyò, oswa li rete obsève kāya nan
kāya intern ak deyò; li rete obsève samudaya nan fenomèn nan kāya, oswa
li rete obsève pase a nan fenomèn nan kāya, oswa li rete obsève samudaya
a ak pase lwen fenomèn nan kāya; oswa lòt moun, [reyalize:] “sa a se
kāya!” sati se prezan nan li, jis nan limit nan ñāṇa sèlman ak paṭissati
sèlman, li rete detache, epi yo pa rete kole sou anyen nan mond lan. Se
konsa, poupe, yon bhikkhu abite obsève kāya nan kāya.

(2)

Anplis de sa, poupe, yon moniman, menm jan si li te wè yon kadav, jete
nan yon tè zwazo, ke yo te manje pa kòn, ke yo te manje pa malfini yo,
ke yo te manje nan zwazo k’ap vole yo, ke yo te manje nan heron, ke yo
te manje nan chen, yo te manje yo te manje tig yo, ke yo te manje pa
pantèr, ke yo te manje pa divès kalite èt, li te konsidere sa a trè
kāya: “Sa a kāya tou se nan yon nati konsa, li pral vin tankou sa a, epi
li pa gratis nan yon kondisyon konsa. “

Se konsa, li rete obsève
kāya nan kāya intern, oswa li rete obsève kāya nan kāya deyò, oswa li
rete obsève kāya nan kāya intern ak deyò; li rete obsève samudaya nan
fenomèn nan kāya, oswa li rete obsève pase a nan fenomèn nan kāya, oswa
li rete obsève samudaya a ak pase lwen fenomèn nan kāya; oswa lòt moun,
[reyalize:] “sa a se kāya!” sati se prezan nan li, jis nan limit nan
ñāṇa sèlman ak paṭissati sèlman, li rete detache, epi yo pa rete kole
sou anyen nan mond lan. Se konsa, poupe, yon bhikkhu abite obsève kāya
nan kāya.

(3)
Anplis de sa, poupe, yon moniman, menm jan si
li te wè yon kò mouri, jete lwen nan yon tè vòl, yon squeleton ak vyann
ak san, ki te kenbe ansanm ak tandon, li konsidere sa a trè kāya: “Sa a
se tou de yon tankou yon nati, li pral vin tankou sa a, epi li pa gratis
nan yon kondisyon konsa. “

Se konsa, li rete obsève kāya nan
kāya intern, oswa li rete obsève kāya nan kāya deyò, oswa li rete obsève
kāya nan kāya intern ak deyò; li rete obsève samudaya nan fenomèn nan
kāya, oswa li rete obsève pase a nan fenomèn nan kāya, oswa li rete
obsève samudaya a ak pase lwen fenomèn nan kāya; oswa lòt moun,
[reyalize:] “sa a se kāya!” sati se prezan nan li, jis nan limit nan
ñāṇa sèlman ak paṭissati sèlman, li rete detache, epi yo pa rete kole
sou anyen nan mond lan. Se konsa, poupe, yon bhikkhu abite obsève kāya
nan kāya.

(4)
Anplis de sa, bhikkhus, yon bhikkhu, menm jan
si li te wè yon kò mouri, jete lwen nan yon tè zwazo, yon squeleton san
vyann ak andwi ak san, kenbe yo ansanm ak tandon, li konsidere sa a trè
kāya: “Sa a se tou kāya nan tankou yon nati, li pral vin tankou sa a,
epi li pa gratis nan yon kondisyon konsa. “

Se konsa, li rete
obsève kāya nan kāya intern, oswa li rete obsève kāya nan kāya deyò,
oswa li rete obsève kāya nan kāya intern ak deyò; li rete obsève
samudaya nan fenomèn nan kāya, oswa li rete obsève pase a nan fenomèn
nan kāya, oswa li rete obsève samudaya a ak pase lwen fenomèn nan kāya;
oswa lòt moun, [reyalize:] “sa a se kāya!” sati se prezan nan li, jis
nan limit nan ñāṇa sèlman ak paṭissati sèlman, li rete detache, epi yo
pa rete kole sou anyen nan mond lan. Se konsa, poupe, yon bhikkhu abite
obsève kāya nan kāya.

(5)
Anplis de sa, poupe, yon moniman,
menm jan si li te wè yon kadav, jete lwen nan yon tè vòlè, yon eklèsi
san vyann ni san, ki te kenbe pa tandon, li konsidere sa trè kāya: “Sa a
se tou de yon tankou yon nati, li pral vin tankou sa a, epi li pa
gratis nan yon kondisyon konsa. “

Se konsa, li rete obsève kāya
nan kāya intern, oswa li rete obsève kāya nan kāya deyò, oswa li rete
obsève kāya nan kāya intern ak deyò; li rete obsève samudaya nan fenomèn
nan kāya, oswa li rete obsève pase a nan fenomèn nan kāya, oswa li rete
obsève samudaya a ak pase lwen fenomèn nan kāya; oswa lòt moun,
[reyalize:] “sa a se kāya!” sati se prezan nan li, jis nan limit nan
ñāṇa sèlman ak paṭissati sèlman, li rete detache, epi yo pa rete kole
sou anyen nan mond lan. Se konsa, poupe, yon bhikkhu abite obsève kāya
nan kāya.

(6)
Anplis de sa, bhikkhus, yon bhikkhu, menm jan
si li te wè yon kò mouri, jete lwen nan yon tè zwazo, zo dekonekte gaye
isit la epi gen, isit la yon zo men, gen yon zo pye, isit la yon zo
cheviy, gen yon Shin zo , isit la yon zo kwis pye, gen yon zo anch, isit
la yon kòt, gen yon zo tounen, isit la yon zo kolòn vètebral, gen yon
zo kou, isit la yon zo machwè, gen yon zo dan, oswa gen zo bwa tèt la,
li konsidere sa trè kāya : “Sa a kāya tou se nan yon nati konsa, li pral
vin tankou sa a, epi se pa gratis nan yon kondisyon konsa.”

Se
konsa, li rete obsève kāya nan kāya intern, oswa li rete obsève kāya nan
kāya deyò, oswa li rete obsève kāya nan kāya intern ak deyò; li rete
obsève samudaya nan fenomèn nan kāya, oswa li rete obsève pase a nan
fenomèn nan kāya, oswa li rete obsève samudaya a ak pase lwen fenomèn
nan kāya; oswa lòt moun, [reyalize:] “sa a se kāya!” sati se prezan nan
li, jis nan limit nan ñāṇa sèlman ak paṭissati sèlman, li rete detache,
epi yo pa rete kole sou anyen nan mond lan. Se konsa, poupe, yon bhikkhu
abite obsève kāya nan kāya.

(7)
Anplis de sa, poupe, yon
moniman, menm jan si li te wè yon kò mouri, jete lwen nan yon tè vòlè,
zo yo blanchi tankou yon kokiyaj, li konsidere sa trè kāya: “Sa a se tou
kaba se nan yon nati, li pral vin tankou sa a, epi se pa gratis nan yon
kondisyon konsa. “

Se konsa, li rete obsève kāya nan kāya
intern, oswa li rete obsève kāya nan kāya deyò, oswa li rete obsève kāya
nan kāya intern ak deyò; li rete obsève samudaya nan fenomèn nan kāya,
oswa li rete obsève pase a nan fenomèn nan kāya, oswa li rete obsève
samudaya a ak pase lwen fenomèn nan kāya; oswa lòt moun, [reyalize:] “sa
a se kāya!” sati se prezan nan li, jis nan limit nan ñāṇa sèlman ak
paṭissati sèlman, li rete detache, epi yo pa rete kole sou anyen nan
mond lan. Se konsa, poupe, yon bhikkhu abite obsève kāya nan kāya.

(8)
Anplis de sa, poupe, yon moniman, menm jan si li te wè yon kò mouri,
jete lwen nan yon tè zwazo, antase zo sou yon ane fin vye granmoun, li
konsidere sa trè kāya: “Sa a se tou yon nati, li se pral vin tankou sa
a, epi se pa gratis nan yon kondisyon konsa. “

Se konsa, li rete
obsève kāya nan kāya intern, oswa li rete obsève kāya nan kāya deyò,
oswa li rete obsève kāya nan kāya intern ak deyò; li rete obsève
samudaya nan fenomèn nan kāya, oswa li rete obsève pase a nan fenomèn
nan kāya, oswa li rete obsève samudaya a ak pase lwen fenomèn nan kāya;
oswa lòt moun, [reyalize:] “sa a se kāya!” sati se prezan nan li, jis
nan limit nan ñāṇa sèlman ak paṭissati sèlman, li rete detache, epi yo
pa rete kole sou anyen nan mond lan. Se konsa, poupe, yon bhikkhu abite
obsève kāya nan kāya.

(9
Anplis de sa, poupe, yon moniman,
menm jan si li te wè yon kò mouri, jete lwen nan yon tè vòl, zo ki pouri
redwi a poud, li te konsidere sa trè kāya: “Sa a se tou yon nati, li
pral vin tankou sa a, epi se pa gratis nan yon kondisyon sa yo. “


Se konsa, li rete obsève kāya nan kāya intern, oswa li rete obsève kāya
nan kāya deyò, oswa li rete obsève kāya nan kāya intern ak deyò; li
rete obsève samudaya nan fenomèn nan kāya, oswa li rete obsève pase a
nan fenomèn nan kāya, oswa li rete obsève samudaya a ak pase lwen
fenomèn nan kāya; oswa lòt moun, [reyalize:] “sa a se kāya!” sati se
prezan nan li, jis nan limit nan ñāṇa sèlman ak paṭissati sèlman, li
rete detache, epi yo pa rete kole sou anyen nan mond lan. Se konsa,
poupe, yon bhikkhu abite obsève kāya nan kāya.

II. Obsèvasyon Vedanā

Epi ankò, kijan, ki jan yon bhikkhu rete obsève vedanā nan vedanā?


Isit la, monchè, yon moniman, ki gen yon sukha vedanā, out: “Mwen gen
yon sukha vedanā”; ki gen yon dukkha vedanā, out: “Mwen gen yon dukkha
vedanā”; ki gen yon adukkham-asukhā vedanā, bese: “Mwen gen yon
adukkham-asukhā vedanā”; ki gen yon sukha vedanā sāmisa, out: “Mwen gen
yon sukha vedanā sāmisa”; ki gen yon sukha vedanā nirāmisa, out: “Mwen
gen yon sukha vedanā nirāmisa”; ki gen yon dukkha vedanā sāmisa, out:
“Mwen gen yon dukkha vedanā sāmisa”; ki gen yon dukkha vedanā nirāmisa,
out: “Mwen gen yon dukkha vedanā nirāmisa”; ki gen yon adukkham-asukhā
vedanā sāmisa, out: “Mwen gen yon adukkham-asukhā vedanā sāmisa”; ki gen
yon adukkham-asukhā vedanā nirāmisa, out: “Mwen gen yon adukkham-asukhā
vedanā nirāmisa”.

Se konsa, li rete obsève vedanā nan vedanā
intern, oswa li rete obsève vedanā nan vedanā deyò, oswa li rete obsève
vedanā nan vedanā intern ak deyò; li rete obsève samudaya nan fenomèn
nan vedanā, oswa li rete obsève pase a nan fenomèn nan vedanā, oswa li
rete obsève samudaya a ak pase lwen fenomèn nan vedanā; oswa lòt moun,
[reyalize:] “sa a se vedanā!” sati se prezan nan li, jis nan limit nan
ñāṇa sèlman ak paṭissati sèlman, li rete detache, epi yo pa rete kole
sou anyen nan mond lan. Kidonk, ansanbl, yon bhikkhu rete nan obsan
vedanā nan vedanā.

III. Obsèvasyon sou Sitta

Ak Anplis de sa, kijan, ki jan yon bhikkhu rete obsève sitta nan sitta?


Isit la, yon mwayen, yon bikikou konprann sitta ak raga kòm “sitta ak
raga”, oswa li konprann sitta san raga kòm “sitta san raga”, oswa li
konprann sitta ak dosa kòm “sitta ak dosa”, oswa li konprann sitta san
dosa kòm “citta san dosa”, oswa li konprann citta ak moha kòm “citta ak
moha”, oswa li konprann citta san moha kòm “citta san moha”, oswa li
konprann yon citta kolekte kòm “yon citta kolekte”, oswa li konprann yon
gaye citta kòm “yon sitta ki gaye toupatou”, oswa li konprann yon sitta
elaji kòm “yon sitta elaji”, oswa li konprann yon sitta ki pa ekspande
kòm “yon sitta san ekspansyon”, oswa li konprann yon sitta depase kòm
“yon sitta depase”, oswa li konprann … yon citta surpase kòm “yon
sitta surpase”, oswa li konprann yon sitta rete kòm “yon sitta rete”,
oswa li konprann yon sitta instabilité kòm “yon sit instabilite”, oswa
li konprann yon citta libere kòm “yon citta libere”, oswa li konprann
yon sitta libere kòm “yon sitta libere”.

Se konsa li rete obsève
sitta nan sitta intern, oswa li rete obsève sitta nan sitta deyò, oswa
li rete obsève sitta nan sit intern ak deyò; li rete obsève samudaya nan
fenomèn nan sitta, oswa li rete obsève pase nan fenomèn nan sitta, oswa
li rete obsève samudaya la ak pase lwen fenomèn nan citta; oswa lòt
moun, [reyalize:] “sa a se sitta!” sati se prezan nan li, jis nan limit
nan ñāṇa sèlman ak paṭissati sèlman, li rete detache, epi yo pa rete
kole sou anyen nan mond lan. Kidonk, yon fanmi, yon moun ki abite obsève
sitta nan sitta a.

IV. Obsèvasyon Dhammas la

A. Seksyon sou Nīvaraṇas yo


Ak Anplis de sa, kijan, ki jan yon bhikkhu rete obsève dhammas nan
dhammas? Isit la, yon ti moman, yon bhikkhu rete dhammas obsève nan
dhammas ak referans a senk nīvaraṇas yo. Ak Anplis de sa, kijan, ki jan
yon bhikkhu rete obsève dhammas nan dhammas ak referans a senk nīvaraṇas
yo?

Isit la, monchè, yon mo, gen ke yo te prezante nan
kāmacchanda, konprann: “gen kāmacchanda nan mwen”; pa gen kāmacchanda
prezan nan, li konprann: “pa gen okenn kāmacchanda nan mwen”; li
konprann ki jan karaimarsa a unarisen rive leve; li konprann kijan yo te
abandone kāmacchanda parèt la; e li konprann kijan kāmacchanda abandone
a pa rive leve nan fiti.

Isit la, monchè, yon mo, gen ke yo te
prezante nanāpāda nan, konprann: “gen byāpāda nan mwen”; gen pa ke yo te
byāpāda prezan nan, li konprann: “pa gen okenn byāpāda nan mwen”; li
konprann ki jan byāpāda unarisen vin leve; li konprann ki jan moun ki
parèt abandone; epi li konprann ki jan byāpāda abandone a pa rive leve
nan fiti.

Isit la, monchè, yon moniman, gen ke yo te prezante
nan, konprann: “pa gen okenn nan mwen”; gen pa t ‘thīnamiddhā prezan
nan, li konprann: “pa gen okenn thīnamiddhā nan mwen”; li konprann
kouman unarisen thīnamiddhā la vini leve; li konprann kijan moun ki
parèt la abandone; e li konprann ki jan thīnamiddhā abandone a pa rive
leve nan fiti.

Li konprann dan, li konprann dhammas, li konprann
saṃyojana ki rive akòz de sa yo, li konprann ki jan saenyojana unarisen
rive leve, li konprann ki jan saṃyojana a parèt abandone, epi li
konprann ki jan saṃyojana a abandone pa vini nan leve nan tan kap vini
an.

Kidonk li rete dhammas obsève nan dhammas anndan, oswa li
rete obsève dhammas nan dhammas deyò, oswa li rete obsève dhammas nan
dhammas anndan ak deyò; li rete obsève samudaya nan fenomèn nan dhammas,
oswa li rete obsève pase nan fenomèn nan dhammas, oswa li rete obsève
samudaya a ak pase lwen fenomèn nan dhammas; oswa lòt moun, [reyalize:]
“sa yo se dhammas!” sati se prezan nan li, jis nan limit nan ñāṇa sèlman
ak paṭissati sèlman, li rete detache, epi yo pa rete kole sou anyen nan
mond lan. Kidonk, ansanbl, yon bhikkhu rete dhammas obsève nan dhammas,
ak referans a sis āyana yo entèn ak ekstèn.

D. Seksyon sou Bojjhaṅgas la


Ak Anplis de sa, yon moun, yon moun ki abite obsève dhammas nan dhammas
ak referans a sèt bojjhaṅgas yo. Ak Anplis de sa, kijan, ki jan yon
bhikkhu rete obsève dhammas nan dhammas ak referans a sèt bojjhaṅgas yo?


Isit la, monchè, yon mo, gen ke yo te sati sambojjhaṅga prezan an nan,
konprann: “gen sati sambojjhaṅga a nan mwen”; pa gen sati sambojjhaṅga
prezan nan, li konprann: “pa gen sati sambojjhaṅga nan mwen”; li
konprann ki jan sarisojhaba unati nan sati vini leve; li konprann kijan
Sati Sambojjhaṅga a parèt devlope nan pèfeksyon.

Yo te prezan an
sambojjhaṅga dhammavicaya nan, li konprann: “gen sambojjhaṅga
dhammavicaya nan mwen”; pa gen sambojjhaṅga dhammavicaya prezan nan, li
konprann: “pa gen dhammavicaya sambojjhaṅga nan mwen”; li konprann kijan
unarisen dhammavicaya sambojjhaṅga vin leve; li konprann kijan
sambojjhaṅga a dhammavicaya parèt devlope nan pèfeksyon.

Gen ke
yo te vīriya sambojjhaṅga a prezan nan, li konprann: “gen vīriya
sambojjhaṅga a nan mwen”; pa gen sambojjhaṅga a vīriya prezan nan, li
konprann: “pa gen okenn vīriya sambojjhaṅga nan mwen”; li konprann ki
jan sarisojaha unarisen vīriya vini leve; li konprann ki jan vīriya
sambojjhaṅga a parèt devlope nan pèfeksyon.

Yo te prezan nan pīti
sambojjhaṅga nan, li konprann: “gen pīti sambojjhaṅga a nan mwen”; pa
gen pīti sambojjhaṅga prezan nan, li konprann: “pa gen pīti sambojjhaṅga
nan mwen”; li konprann kouman unarisen pīti sambojjhaṅga vin leve; li
konprann kijan se pīti sambojjhaṅga a devlope nan pèfeksyon.

Gen
ke yo te pasaddhi sambojjhaṅga a prezan nan, li konprann: “gen passaddhi
sambojjhaṅga a nan mwen”; gen pa ke yo te pasaddhi sambojjhaṅga a
prezan nan, li konprann: “pa gen okenn passaddhi sambojjhaṅga nan mwen”;
li konprann kijan sambojjhaṅga passaddhi unarisen vin leve; li konprann
ki jan se paradi pasaddhi sambojjhaṅga la devlope nan pèfeksyon.


Gen ke yo te samādhi sambojjhaṅga a prezan nan, li konprann: “gen
samādhi sambojjhaṅga a nan mwen”; gen pa ke yo te samādhi sambojjhaṅga a
prezan nan, li konprann: “pa gen okenn samādhi sambojjhaṅga nan mwen”;
li konprann ki jan samarsani unanbrèl sambojjhaṅga vin leve; li konprann
ki jan se parèt samādhi sambojjhaṅga a devlope nan pèfeksyon.


Gen ke yo te upekkhā sambojjhaṅga prezan a nan, li konprann: “gen
upekkhā sambojjhaṅga nan mwen”; gen pa ke yo te upekkhā sambojjhaṅga a
prezan nan, li konprann: “pa gen okenn upekkhā sambojjhaṅga nan mwen”;
li konprann ki jan sarkojjhaāga upekkhā unarisen vin leve; li konprann
ki jan se parka upekkhā sambojjhaṅga a devlope nan pèfeksyon.


Kidonk li rete dhammas obsève nan dhammas anndan, oswa li rete obsève
dhammas nan dhammas deyò, oswa li rete obsève dhammas nan dhammas anndan
ak deyò; li rete obsève samudaya nan fenomèn nan dhammas, oswa li rete
obsève pase nan fenomèn nan dhammas, oswa li rete obsève samudaya a ak
pase lwen fenomèn nan dhammas; oswa lòt moun, [reyalize:] “sa yo se
dhammas!” sati se prezan nan li, jis nan limit nan ñāṇa sèlman ak
paṭissati sèlman, li rete detache, epi yo pa rete kole sou anyen nan
mond lan. Se konsa, poupe, yon moun ki rete obsève dhammas nan dhammas,
ak referans a sèt bojjhaṅgas yo.

Isit la, monchè, yon mo, gen ke
yo te uddhacca-kukkucca prezan nan, konprann: “gen uddhacca-kukkucca nan
mwen”; gen pa ke yo te uddhacca-kukkucca prezan nan, li konprann: “pa
gen okenn uddhacca-kukkucca nan mwen”; li konprann ki jan unarisen
uddhacca-kukkucca a vini leve; li konprann ki jan uddhacca-kukkucca a
parèt abandone; epi li konprann ki jan uddhacca-kukkucca a abandone pa
vini leve nan tan kap vini an.

Isit la, monchè, yon mo, gen ke yo
te prezan vicikicchā nan, konprann: “gen vicikicchā nan mwen”; gen pa
ke yo te prezan vicikicchā nan, li konprann: “pa gen okenn vicikicchā
nan mwen”; li konprann kijan vikicchā unarisen la vini leve; li konprann
ki jan vikicchā a parèt abandone; e li konprann kijan vikicchā abandone
a pa vini nan lavni.

Kidonk li rete dhammas obsève nan dhammas
anndan, oswa li rete obsève dhammas nan dhammas deyò, oswa li rete
obsève dhammas nan dhammas anndan ak deyò; li rete obsève samudaya nan
fenomèn nan dhammas, oswa li rete obsève pase nan fenomèn nan dhammas,
oswa li rete obsève samudaya a ak pase lwen fenomèn nan dhammas; oswa
lòt moun, [reyalize:] “sa yo se dhammas!” sati se prezan nan li, jis nan
limit nan ñāṇa sèlman ak paṭissati sèlman, li rete detache, epi yo pa
rete kole sou anyen nan mond lan. Se konsa, poupe, yon moun ki rete
obsève dhammas nan dhammas, ak referans a senk nīvaraṇas yo.

B. Seksyon sou Khandhas yo


Ak Anplis de sa, yon mo, yon bhikkhu rete dhammas obsève nan dhammas ak
referans a senk khandhas yo. Ak Anplis de sa, kijan, ki jan yon bhikkhu
rete obsève dhammas nan dhammas ak referans a senk khandhas yo?


Isit la, yon mwayen, yon bikikou [discerns]: “sa yo se rūpa, tankou se
samudaya nan rūpa, tankou se pase nan rūpa; tankou se vedanā, se konsa
samudaya de vedanā, se konsa pase nan vedanā; se saññā, se konsa
samudaya de saññā, se konsa pase nan saññā; sa se saṅkhāra, se konsa
samudaya de saākhāra, se konsa pase nan saṅkhāra; tankou se viññāṇa, se
konsa se samudaya de viññāṇa, se konsa pase nan viññāṇa “.

Kidonk
li rete dhammas obsève nan dhammas anndan, oswa li rete obsève dhammas
nan dhammas deyò, oswa li rete obsève dhammas nan dhammas anndan ak
deyò; li rete obsève samudaya nan fenomèn nan dhammas, oswa li rete
obsève pase nan fenomèn nan dhammas, oswa li rete obsève samudaya a ak
pase lwen fenomèn nan dhammas; oswa lòt moun, [reyalize:] “sa yo se
dhammas!” sati se prezan nan li, jis nan limit nan ñāṇa sèlman ak
paṭissati sèlman, li rete detache, epi yo pa rete kole sou anyen nan
mond lan. Se konsa, poupe, yon moun ki rete obsève dhammas nan dhammas,
ak referans a senk khandhas yo.

C. Seksyon sou esfè sans yo


Ak Anplis de sa, yon moun, yon bhikkhu rete dhammas obsève nan dhammas
ak referans a sis āyatanas yo entèn ak ekstèn. Ak Anplis de sa, kijan,
ki jan yon bhikkhu rete obsève dhammas nan dhammas ak referans a sis
āyana yo entèn ak ekstèn?

Isit la, yon mwayen, yon bikikak
konprann cakkhu, li konprann rūpa, li konprann saṃyojana ki rive akòz de
sa yo, li konprann ki jan saenyojana unarisen rive leve, li konprann ki
jan saṃyojana a parèt abandone, epi li konprann ki jan saṃyojana a
abandone. pa vini nan leve nan lavni.

Li konprann sas, li
konprann sadda, li konprann saṃyojana ki rive akòz de sa yo, li konprann
kijan saojyojana unarisen vin leve, li konprann kijan saṃyojana parèt
la abandone, e li konprann kijan saṃyojana abandone pa vini leve. nan
tan kap vini an.

Li konprann ghāna, li konprann gandha, li
konprann saṃyojana ki rive akòz de sa yo, li konprann ki jan saṃyojana
unarisen rive leve, li konprann kijan saṃyojana parèt la abandone, e li
konprann kijan saṃyojana abandone pa vini leve nan tan kap vini an.


Li konprann jivha, li konprann rasa, li konprann saṃyojana ki rive akòz
de sa yo, li konprann ki jan saenyojana unarisen vini leve, li konprann
ki jan saṃyojana parèt la abandone, e li konprann kijan saṃyojana
abandone pa vini leve nan tan kap vini an.

Li konprann kāya, li
konprann phoṭṭhabba, li konprann saṃyojana ki rive akòz de sa yo, li
konprann ki jan saenyojana unarisen rive leve, li konprann ki jan
saṃyojana parèt la abandone, e li konprann kijan saṃyojana abandone pa
vini leve nan tan kap vini an.


youtube.com
Chanting of the Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna Sutta,

Chanting of the Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna Sutta,

https://www.sangam.org/2010/12/Tamil_Buddhists.php?uid=4177

link between Buddha Dhamma Sangha and tamil sangam era

Ilankai Tamil Sangam

24th Year on the Web
Association of Tamils of Sri Lanka in the USA

Home
Archives
The Tamil Buddhists of the Past and the Future

by J.L. Devananda, ArticlesBase, October 4, 2010

The remains of a Buddhist monastery excavated at Kaveripattinum
which could be assigned to the fourth century are believed to be the
earliest archaeological relics of Buddhism in Tamil Nadu. The major
urban centers of Kanchipuram, Kaveripattinam, Uragapura (Uraiyur), and
Madurai were not only centers of Buddhism, but these were also important
centers of Pali learning…

The situation in Tamil Nadu, however, began to change towards the
beginning of the 7th Century AD when the rise of Vaishnavism and Saivism
posed a serious challenge to Buddhism and Jainism.

In his keynote address at the 2554th Vesak (Vaishakha Purnim)
celebrations at the Mahabodhi Society in Chennai, Prof. Sunil
Ariyaratne, University of Sri Jayawardenapura, Sri Lanka said, “As we
are nearing 2600 Buddha Jayanthi, as a Sinhala Buddhist, this is my
humble dream for the future: Tamil Buddhist temples should come up in
Sri Lanka; Tamil children should embrace Buddhist monkhood; Buddhism
must be taught in Tamil; preaching and worshipping Buddhism in Tamil;
Tamil Bikkus should have Sinhala followers and Tamil Bhikkus must visit
Sinhala homes. That togetherness should be there.”

This sounds somewhat similar to the famous speech “I have a Dream”
by Martin Luther King, Jr in 1963 from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial
during the march for freedom at Washington. The only difference is
Prof. Sunil Ariyaratne’s dream of Tamil Buddhism in Sri Lanka in the
future had already existed in the past.

Ancient Buddhist links between Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka

Today, the Palk Strait which lies between Tamil Nadu and Sri Lankan
land masses, is seen as a divider, separating two different distinct
ethnicities, religions, cultures and political entities but there was a
phase in history when Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka enjoyed very close ties,
thanks to a shared interest in Buddhism. During the early period, the
Palk Strait was not seen as a divider but it was a unifier. At that time
Buddhism was a bridge between Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu. The fascinating
story of the historical links - Golden threads between Buddhism in
Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka was narrated by Dr. Shu Hikosake, Director and
Professor of Buddhism, Institute of Asian Studies in Madras in his book
1989 Buddhism in Tamil Nadu: a New Perspective. Dr. Hikosaka’s study is
based on his doctoral dissertation.

The earliest inscriptions in Tamil Nadu written in the Brahmi
character of the time, on the walls of the natural caves in the Tamil
districts of Madura, Ramnad and Tirnnelveli belongs to the third century
BC. They are of considerable interest to students of South Indian
Buddhism. It is learnt from these Brahmi inscriptions, that Buddhism had
come into Tamil Nadu even then. However, the epigraphical evidence
seems to confirm that, it was to King Asoka and the missionary monk
Mahinda (believed to be his son) that the introduction of Buddhism into
Tamil Nadu may be attributed. In his Rock-Edict No. III, King Asoka says
that his Dharma Vijaya prevailed in the kingdoms of the Colas, Pandyans
and at Tambapanni (Sri Lanka). Particularly the edict number XIII found
near Peshawar, there is reference to the Buddhist missions of Asoka.
Among the countries referred to are Cola, Pandya, and Tambapanni. This
inscription was written in 258 B.C. and is direct evidence of the
Buddhist missions of Asoka to the Tamil country and Sri Lanka even
though it does not mention about his son Mahinda. As Buddhist missions
to Sri Lanka had to come by way of South India, the spread of Buddhism
in Sri Lanka and South India in the 2nd century AD should be considered
contemporary events, but it was King Asoka’s son Mahinda who was
responsible for the introduction of Buddhism in Tamil Nadu and Sri
Lanka. Mahinda is said to have erected seven viharas at Kaveripattinum,
the capital of Cola while he was on his way to Sri Lanka. According to
Dr. Hikosaka, contrary to the general impression, Buddhism might have
gone to Sri Lanka from Tamil Nadu by sea-route, a route by which one can
reach Sri Lanka easily. Since there existed very close cultural
affinities between Sri Lanka and the Tamil country from time immemorial,
the Buddhist activities in India could have easily influenced in some
way or other the Buddhism of Sri Lanka, says Dr. Hikosaka.

Even though it is believed that Buddha had visited this region,
South India (Andhra) and Sri Lanka, according to historians, Buddhism
began to make a strong impact on Tamil Nadu only in the 3rd century AD.
During that period Buddhism had spread widely in Tamil Nadu and won the
patronage of the rulers. The remains of a Buddhist monastery excavated
at Kaveripattinum which could be assigned to the fourth century are
believed to be the earliest archaeological relics of Buddhism in Tamil
Nadu. The major urban centers of Kanchipuram, Kaveripattinam, Uragapura
(Uraiyur), and Madurai were not only centers of Buddhism, but these were
also important centers of Pali learning. The other minor towns of
Tamil country where Buddhism was active were Buddhamangalam,
Sanghamangalam, Kumbakonam, Mayurapattanam, Alamkudipatti, Kuvam,
Sanghamangai, Tiruppadirippuliyur, and so on.

Tamil Buddhists contribute to Buddhist scriptures

It was at this time that Tamil Nadu gave some of its greatest
scholars (both Theravada and Mahayana) to the Buddhist world. Tamil Nadu
boasted of outstanding Buddhist monks, who had made remarkable
contributions to Buddhist thought and learning. Three of the greatest
Pali scholars of this period were Buddhaghosa, Buddhadatta, and
Dhammapala and all three of them were associated with Buddhist
establishments in the Tamil kingdoms.

Buddhadatta or Thera Buddhaatta as he is called lived during the
time of Accyutarikkanta, the Kalabra ruler of the Cola-Nadu; was a
senior contemporary of Buddhaghosa. He was born in the Cola kingdom and
lived in the 5th Century AD. Under the patronage of this ruler,
Buddhadatta wrote many books. Among his best known Pali writings are the
Vinaya-Vinicchaya, the Uttara-Vinicchaya and the Jinalankara-Kavya.
Among the commentaries written by him are the Madhurattha-Vilasini and
the Abhidhammavatara. In the Abhidhammaratara he gives a glowing account
at Kaveripattinum, Uragapuram, Bhutamangalam and Kanchipuram and the
Mahavihara at Anuradapura, (Sri Lanka). While he was at Sri Lanka, he
composed many Buddhist works such as Uttara-viniccaya Ruparupa Vibhaga
Jinalankara etc. Buddhaghosha, contemporary of Buddhadatta also composed
many Buddhist commentaries.

Buddhaghosha is a Tamil monk, who made a remarkable contribution to
Buddhism in Sri Lanka. He stayed and studied Buddhist precepts at
Mahavihara in Anuradhapura. The Visuddhimagga was the first work of
Buddhaghosha which was written while he was in Sri Lanka.

After Buddhaghosha, the important Theravada monk from the Tamil
country was Dhammapala. Dhammapala lived in the Mahavihara at
Anuradhapura. He composed paramathadipani which was a commentary on
Buddhaghosha’s work on Khuddaka Nikaya and Paramathamanjusa, which was a
commentary on Buddhaghosha’s Visuddhimagga. A close study of the three
Buddhist monks viz Buddhadatta, Buddhaghosha and Dhammapala shows that
Tamil Buddhists were closely associated with the Sri Lankan Buddhists
around the 5th century AD.

The author of Nettipakarana is another Dhammapala who was a resident
of a monastery in Nagapattinam, another important Buddhist centre from
ancient times. One more example is the Cola monk Kassapa, in his Pali
work, Vimatti-Vinodani, this Tamil monk provides interesting information
about the rise of heretical views in the Cola Sangha and the consequent
purification that took place. There are so many other Tamil monks who
are attributed to the Pali works some of them were resident at
Mayura-rupa-pattana (Mylapore, Madras) along with Buddhagosha.

The Tamil Buddhist monks used Pali languages in preference to Tamil
in their writings. This is because the Buddha spoke in Magadi Prakrit
(Pali).

When
a just born baby is kept isolated without anyone communicating with the
baby, after a few days it will speak and human natural (Prakrit)
language known as
Classical Magahi Magadhi/Classical Chandaso language/Magadhi Prakrit/Classical Hela Basa (Hela Language)/Classical Pali which are the same. Buddha spoke in Magadhi. All the 7111 languages and dialects are off shoot of Classical
Magahi Magadhi. Hence all of them are Classical in nature (Prakrit) of
Human Beings, just like all other living spieces have their own natural
languages for communication. 111 languages are translated by https://translate.google.com


Pali is considered as the sacred language of the Buddhists. The well
known Tamil Buddhist epics found were Manimekalai, Silappadhikaram,
Valaiyapathi, Kundalakesi, and Jivaka Cintamani. Manimekalai, a purely
Buddhist work of the 3rd Sangam period in Tamil literature is the most
supreme and famous among the Buddhist work done in Tamil Nadu. It is a
work expounding the doctrines and propagating the values of Buddhism.
The interaction between Tamil Nadu and Sri Lankan monks finds mention in
Manimekalai, which is set in the Tamil towns of Kaveipumpattinam,
Kanchi, and Vanchi. There is mention about the presence of wondering
monks of Sri Lanka in Vanchi, which was the capital of the Chera Kings
of Tamil Nadu. The Chinese traveller, Tsuan Tsang, wrote that there were
around 300 Sri Lankan monks in the monastery at the Southern sector of
Kanchipuram. Ancient Kanchipuram, the capital of Tondaimandalam, ruled
by the Tamil Pallava dynasty, an offshoot of Chola rulers was the major
seat of Tamil learning and is also known as the city of thousand
temples. Even Thirukkural, the ancient Tamil couplets/aphorisms
celebrated by Tamils is based on Buddhist principals. Although Buddhism
has become almost extinct from Tamil Nadu, it has contributed a great
deal to the enrichment of Tamil culture and has exerted a significant
influence, both directly and indirectly, on the Tamil religious and
spiritual consciousness, present as well as past.

Tamil Buddhism in Sri Lanka

As Buddhism was one of the dominant religions in both Tamil Nadu and
Sri Lanka, naturally there were very close relations between the two
regions. The monks from Sri Lanka, too, went across to the Tamil kingdom
and stayed in the monasteries. As Dr. Leslie Gunawardana says, `The
co-operation between the Buddhist Sangha of South India and Sri Lanka
produced important results which are evident in the Pali works of this
period`. He also says that the Tamil Buddhist monks were more orthodox
than their counterparts in Sri Lanka. Indeed, the relations between the
Tamil and Sinhala Buddhist monks were so close that the latter sought
the assistance of the former in political turmoil.

In Sri Lanka, the Tamil Buddhists who followed Theravada Buddhism
shared the common places of worship with the Sinhalese, but there were
also Tamil Buddhists who were following the Mahayana Buddhism and they
had their own Mahayana temples. There are still some Tamil Mahayana
Buddhist establishments (Palli) in the east and possibly in the Jaffna
peninsula. The best known was Velgam Vehera (see details below), which
was renamed Rajaraja-perumpalli after the Cola emperor. Another was the
Vikkirama-calamekan-perumpalli.

Some ten miles northwest of Trincomalee off the Trincomalee -
Horowupothana road is an ancient Buddhist shrine with origins dating
back to the years before the second century. It is a historical fact
that among the many ancient Buddhist shrines in Sri Lanka Velgam Vehera
which was renamed Rajaraja-perumpalli, also called Natanar Kovil by the
present day Tamils stands out as the only known example of a `Tamil
Vihare or Buddhist Palli` or as the late Dr. Senerath Paranavithana
described it in his book `Glimpses of Ceylon`s Past` as an `Ancient
Buddhist shrine of the Tamil people`. Some of the Tamil inscriptions
found at the site record donations to this shrine and are dated in the
reigns of the Chola Kings, Rajaraja and Rajendradeva. It was his view
that the date of the original foundation of the vihare was no doubt
considerably earlier than the reign of King Bhatika Tissa II.

The situation in Tamil Nadu, however, began to change towards the
beginning of the 7th Century AD when the rise of Vaishnavism and Saivism
posed a serious challenge to Buddhism and Jainism. There was a
significant increase in Hindu/Brahmanical influence and soon the worship
of Siva and Visnu began to gain prominence. The Buddhist and Jaina
institutions in Tamil Nadu came under attack when they began to lose
popular support and the patronage from the rulers. One result of this
was the migration of Buddhist and Jaina monks and devoted lay members to
kingdoms where they could find refuge. While the Jainas and Buddhists
(mostly Mahayana) were able to go to Kannada and Andhra/Telugu regions, a
large part of the Buddhists (Theravada) turned to Sri Lanka and
assimilated with the local Buddhist population.

Mahavihara monks of Anuradapura and the Pali chronicles

Although Buddhism flourished in South India in ancient times, the
5th century AD Pali chronicles such as the Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa
written by the Mahavihara monks of Anuradapura (Sri Lanka) remained
silent about the introduction of Buddhism to South India. This is
because, when Hindu/Brahmanism started reappearing in India and posed a
threat to Buddhism, the Mahavihara monks of Anuradapura (Sri Lanka) due
to their strong devotion to Buddhism and desire to consolidate and
protect this religion in Sri Lanka wrote the Pali chronicles
Deepavamsa/Mahavamsa just to glorify Buddhism and the Buddhist kings of
Sri Lanka and not to record objectively what happened. The `Lion
Ancestry` and the myths about the origin of the Sinhala race as
pre-destined, true custodians of the island of Sri Lanka and guardians
of Buddhism is a myth of the creative authors to protect Buddhism and is
not the common true history. The ancient Sri Lankan Kingdom
(Anuradapura) was ruled by both Buddhist and Hindu kings. There is no
evidence what so ever to prove that they were Sinhala. The arrival of
prince Vijaya and 700 men from North India is only a myth. All those
Buddhist Kings of Anuradapura whom we believe today as Sinhala-Buddhists
are of Tamil origin. Sinhala language is nothing but a hybrid of
Sanskrit, Tamil and Pali. An analysis of the Pali chronicles
(Deepavamsa/Mahavamsa) makes it very clear that the Mahavihara monks who
authored them in the 5th century AD have created the ethnic identity
Sinhala, yoked it with Buddhism and created a new ethno-religious
identity in Sri Lanka known as Sinhala-Buddhist to sustain the religion
in the country for 5000 years.

The ancient Brahmi inscriptions (before 7th century AD) in Tamil
Nadu are in old Tamil where the Tamil names did not end with an ‘N’ or
an ‘M’, but were very similar to those Sanskrit/Pali names. It was only
after the 7th century AD, that the Tamil language adopted some changes
to its Grammar, script, etc. and evolved into the present form. This
might have happened after the Tamils developing what is commonly called
as the pulli (dot) system which is peculiar to Tamils in particular
among the Indian languages and due to this dot system the words/names
ending with ‘A’ ends up with ‘N’ and ‘M’. This is the reason why, in the
Pali chronicles and in the Brahmi stone inscriptions the names of the
Tamil Kings of Anuradhapura were referred to as Sena, Guttika, Elara,
Pulahatha, Bahiya, Panayamara, Parinda, Dathiya, etc and not as Senan,
Guttikan, Ellalan, etc. Similarly in Tamil Nadu, the names of the
ancient kings were referred to as Kulothunga Chola, Vikrma Chola, Aditya
Chola, Kulasekara Pandya, Vira Wickrama Pandya, Parakrama Pandya,
Sundara Pandya, etc.

It is believed that most of the Tamil Buddhist literary work has
been destroyed during religious controversies. The loss of Tamil
Buddhist literature was a death blow to Tamil Buddhism. Apart from the
Brahmi inscriptions and other archeological evidence found in Tamil Nadu
and the available Tamil literary works, the Rock-Edicts of King Asoka
also sheds much light on this subject. Even though the Pali chronicles
did not mention the ethnic background of the ancient Sri Lankan
Buddhists and the Buddhist kings right from Devanampiya Tissa, the
Mahavamsa referred to the Non-Buddhist kings as Tamils (invaders). The
above facts and the non-existence of Tamil Buddhists during the colonial
period (due to the 10th century Chola invasion) led the 19th century
European Pali scholars who translated the Pali chronicles to assume and
subsequently the present day Sri Lankans to believe that the ancient
Buddhists and the Buddhists Kings of Sri Lanka were Sinhalese.

Unfortunately, today there are no Tamil Buddhists in Sri Lanka but
the majority of the early Tamils of Sri Lanka (before the 10th century
Chola invasion) were Buddhists. The ancient Buddhist remains in the
North and East of Sri Lanka are the remnants left by the Tamil Buddhists
and not anybody else. They are part of the heritage of Sri Lankan
Tamils. Only the Buddhist temples, statues and structures build in the
recent past and present in the North and East remain as
Sinhala-Buddhist.

Important Questions

The questions still remain, why are the Sri Lankans ignorant of
their past or rather, why is the Sri Lanka’s past hidden from its own
people? Why do the Sri Lankans believe that the Buddhist sites in Sri
Lanka belong only to the Sinhalese (Sinhala heritage) and not to the
Tamils? Why are the Sri Lankans ignorant about the early Tamil Buddhists
of Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu? Why do the Sri Lankans think, in Sri Lanka
a Buddhist should be a Sinhalese and a Hindu should be a Tamil while
the Sinhalese worship most of the Hindu/Brahmanical Gods? Why do most
Sinhala-Buddhists believe that they are blood relatives of Lord Buddha
(Sakya clan)? Why are the Sinhalese so ignorant to believe that the
Tamils in Sri Lanka are either invaders or brought by the colonial
rulers?

Not only the Indians but even the Sri Lankan Tamils gave up Buddhism
and accepted Hinduism. For them to go back to Buddhism, has 2500 years
of Buddhism in Sri Lanka (the so called Dhammadveepa) influenced any
major changes in the Sinhala society (the so called guardians of
Buddhism chosen by none other than the Buddha) in terms of attitude,
character, behavior, morality and so on or has it failed miserably? Are
the Buddhist monks practicing Ahimsa (non-violence), Karuna
(compassion), Metta (affection), and Maithriya (loving-kindness) towards
fellow humans (irrespective of race/religion) or are they in the name
of Buddhism promoting ethno-religious chauvinism and hatred?

Buddhism in Sri Lanka is monopolized by the Sinhalese and they call
it Sinhala-Buddhism which is Theravada Buddhism (Tripitaka) mixed up
with the Mahavamsa. Will the Sinhala-Buddhist Maha Sangha accept any
Tamil Buddhist monks? Will the Tamils accept Mahavamsa as a part of
Buddhism or Buddhist history knowing very well that it is a
Sinhala-Buddhist mythology?

Prof. Sunil Ariyaratne’s dream of future Tamil Buddhists is very
genuine and apt during this period. As he says, it may recreate the
togetherness, the common bond that once existed between the Sinhalese
and Tamils. It will not be a surprise if Nanda Malini sings about the
Damila Buddhayo of the past and the future but can his dream
materialize? Of course, miracles do happen; Martin Luther King Junior’s
dream came true so let us have some hope.

Retrieved from “http://www.articlesbase.com/culture-articles/the-tamil-buddhists-of-the-past-and-the-future-3402500.html
(ArticlesBase SC #3402500)

—————————————————————————-

From Barbaric Sinhala-Buddhism to Civilized Buddhism

by J.L. Devananda, ArticlesBase, December 22, 2010

The Buddhism practiced in Sri Lanka, better known as
Sinhala-Buddhism (or Mahavamsa-Buddhism) is different from the Theravada
Buddhism practiced in other countries such as Thailand, Cambodia and so
on. The Buddhists in these countries follow only the Buddhist
scriptures Tripitaka (Viniya, Sutta, Abhidhamma), whereas in Sri Lanka
the ‘Mahavamsa,’ which was written by one of the Mahavihara monks (Ven.
Mahanama) more than 1000 years after the passing away of Lord Buddha is
also considered as a part of the Buddhist scriptures, although it deals
mostly with mythical or supernatural Buddhist history, some episodes of
which are copied from the ‘Mahabaratha’ and ‘Ramayana.’ Since the
Buddhist scriptures (Tripitaka) and the mythical Buddhist history
(Mahavamsa) were both written in the Pali language, a Buddhist layperson
who does not understand Pali cannot understand the difference between
the two and, therefore, he/she believes everything that the Buddhist
monks preach, to be the true words of Buddha.

Due to ignorance, even the present day Sinhala-Buddhists still
believe that they are blood relatives of Buddha because, according to
the Mahavamsa, their forefather Pandu-Vasudeva belongs to the Sakya
clan, and is a relative of the Buddha where as the historians believe
that the term ‘Pandu’ in Pali means Pandyans.

According to Buddhism, a person ordained as a Bikkhu should practice
Ahimsa (non-violence), Karuna (compassion), Metta (affection), and
Maithriya (loving-kindness) towards fellow humans, (irrespective of race
or religion), not only by words but also in his thoughts and action.
Unfortunately in Sri Lanka, due to the influence of the Mahavamsa, a
Buddhist Bikkhu is at liberty to engage in racist politics and promote
Sinhala-Buddhist chauvinism and hatred, as we see today.

Protecting Buddhism

There was NO Buddhism in Sri Lanka until Emperor Asoka’s missionary
monks led by Mahinda converted the Hindu (Siva worshipping) Naga King
Tissa into a Buddhist in the 2nd century BC. Similarly, there was NO
Sinhala race/tribe in Sri Lanka until the Mahavihara monks created it in
the 5th century AD. When Hindu/Brahmanical influence posed a serious
challenge to Buddhism and when Buddhism started to lose popular support
and the patronage from the rulers, the Buddhist institutions in India
came under attack. The Mahavihara monks of Anuradapura including Ven.
Mahanama, the author of the Pali chronicle Mahavamsa and a close
relative of the Buddhist Naga king Dhatusena witnessed the decline and
disorientation of Buddhism in India. The events that took place in India
against Buddhism must have prompted the Mahavihara monks in Sri Lanka
to come up with a plan/strategy to protect Buddhism. Due to their strong
devotion to Buddhism and desire to consolidate and protect this
religion in Sri Lanka they have decided to write the Pali chronicles
Deepavamsa/Mahavamsa making Sri Lanka a Dammadeepa/Sinhaladvipa (chosen
land of Buddha where Buddhism will prevail for 5000 years) and creating
the Sinhala race by integrating all the Buddhists from different
tribes/ethnic groups into one race and making them the sustainers of
Buddhism (Gautama Buddha’s chosen people) to protect Buddhism in Sri
Lanka for 5000 years until the next Maithriya Buddha arrive. With the
patronage of the Buddhist Kings, it is the Mahavihara monks who
assimilated all the Buddhists from many different tribes together and
called them Sihala (followers of Mythical Vijaya). There may have been
instances where the convicted criminals from India (Bengal/Gujarat) who
were exiled would have sleeked asylum in the island and would have been
allowed to settle and got assimilated with the local population, but
there is NO historical evidence what so ever to prove Vijaya’s arrival
with 700 men or to say there were Sinhalese during the Early Historic
period. The term ‘Sihala’ itself first appeared ONLY in the 5th Century
AD Pali chronicles Deepavamsa/Mahavamsa and that also ONLY twice in the
beginning chapters. To date, no archaeological evidence has been found
to prove ‘Hela’ or ‘Sihala’ or ‘Sinhala’ existed before that or anything
about Vijaya’s arrival. Only the Mahavamsa Tika that was composed very
much later to interpret the Mahavamsa, mentions that it was adopted from
the mysterycal ‘Vamsa texts’ known as ‘Sihala Atthakatha’ (collection
of Sinhala verbal stories). Very strangely, most of the
mythical/supernatural stories from the so called ‘Sihala Atthakatha
Vamsa texts’ are very similar to those found in the Indian Epics and
Puranas such as the Mahabaratha/Ramayana. Ultimately, the Mahavamsa has
transformed the Buddha into a special patron of Sinhala-Buddhism, an
ethnic religion created in Sri Lanka.

Sinhala and Damela

There are enough of ancient archaeological evidence in Sri Lanka
such as Brahmi stone inscriptions, cave writings, Pali chronicles, etc
where the terms ‘Dameda’, ‘Damela’, ‘Damila’, ‘Demel’ are mentioned as a
group of people living in the island. Even in the Jataka stories such
as Akitti Jataka, there is a reference to Tamil country (Damila-rattha),
where as there is NO evidence what so ever about the terms ‘Hela’,
‘Sihala’, ‘Sinhala’ before and even a few centuries after the Pali
chronicles were written. Even the Mahavamsa says, the missionary monk
Mahinda Maha Thero preached Buddhism to the people of the island in
Deepa basa (language of the island) but it does not say that the deepa
basa was ‘Elu’ or ‘Helu’ or ‘Sihala’.

Some Sinhala scholars have a weak argument for the above. They argue
that the ethnic name of the dominant group does not occur in these
records for the very good reason that there is no need to distinguish
any person by referring to him/her as such when the people as a whole
are entitled to that name (Sihala). The million dollar question is why
it is not the case now because today they are actually the dominant
ethnic group? (How they became a majority is another subject but I will
briefly mention below). Today, leave aside the major things like
medicine, etc, even the smallest stuff like roof tiles are labelled
after ‘Sinhala’.

The above argument could have been accepted if the terms ‘Hela’,
‘Sihala’, ‘Sinhala’ was found at least somewhere outside Sri Lanka such
as in any of the ancient literary works and/or the stone
inscriptions/rock edicts of neighbouring India (either South or North)
that was always associated with the island’s history, but unfortunately
nothing has been found until now.

The kingdoms of Anuradapura and Polonnaruwa were NEVER known as
Sinhala kingdoms and the Naga and Tamil kings who ruled these kingdoms
never called themselves ‘Hela’, ‘Sihala’, or ‘Sinhala’. There is no
evidence to prove that the Nagas were Sinhalese or they became
Sinhalese. Subsequent to the Cola domination of Sri Lanka in the 10th
century A.D, people who identified themselves as Buddhists and Sinhalese
shifted their seats of rule from the ancient kingdoms of Anuradapura
and Polanaruwa towards South and Central Sri Lanka while the people who
identified themselves as Hindus (Saiva) and Tamils moved their ruling
structures from these same regions to the North and East of the island.
It was only after the 13th century AD that the kingdoms of Kotte and
Kandy were known as ‘Sinhale’ even though some parts of the Tamil areas
in North and East also came under the Kandyan rule but Kandy was mostly
ruled by the Kalingas of South-East India and the Nayakkars of South
India with whom the Tamils did not have any problems. Also, the term
‘Sinhale’, appeared only in the 13th Century AD Chulavamsa and NOT in
Deepavamsa/Mahavamsa.

In the 16th century, the Portuguese and in the 18th century, the
Dutch who occupied the island brought in tens of thousands of people
from South India (presently Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andara) and settled them
in the Southern parts of the island as menial labourers (for
growing/peeling cinnamon, fishing/pearl diving, coconut
planting/plucking, toddy tapping, and for many other jobs). Within a few
centuries, the Sinhala population increased exponentially when these
people assimilated with the local Sinhala population by adopting the
Sinhala language and the Buddhist religion. Today their decedents (6th
generation) are not only claiming the ancient Sri Lankan civilization as
their own ‘Sinhala’ heritage but have also become the patriots and
champions of Sinhala-Buddhist chauvinism.

It was the British who re-discovered the Mahavamsa in the early 20th
century and their so called European ‘Pali Scholars’ misinterpreted it,
thereby creating another myth known as Arya-Sinhala. Since the Sinhala
(Elu) language (mixture of Sanskrit, Pali and Tamil/Malayalam) was more
of Indo-Aryan in nature, the British declared that the Sinhalese were
Aryans from North India and the Tamils were Dravidians from South India.
Influenced by the colonial historiography, the Sinhalese declared that
they were indigenous to the island, and that the Tamils were invaders
from South India.

Mahavamsa Mythology

It is said in MAHAVAMSA CHAPTER VII - THE CONSECRATING OF VIJAYA,
**But the king Sihabahu, since he had slain the lion (was called) Sihala
and, by reason of the ties between him and them, all those (followers
of VIJAYA) were also (called) Sihala.**

If Sihabahu whose father had slain the lion was called Sihala and
his eldest son Vijaya and his followers were also called Sihala, then
what about Vijaya’s twin brother Sumitta and his followers in Sinhapura,
India? Why they were not called Sihala? That itself proves that Vijaya
and the Sinhala race was a creation of Ven. Mahanama and the Mahavihara
monks.

Another good example of the myths, fantasies, superstitions and
fables from the Mahavamsa is the Elara/Dutugemunu episode. Just around
ten lines/verses in the Pali chronicle Deepavamsa about the
Elara/Dutugemunu was blown up into 11 chapters in the Mahavamsa just to
glorify Buddhism and the Buddhist kings against the Hindus which gave
birth to “superior race”, “Bhoomiputhra (sons of the soil)”,
“Sinhaladivpa” “unitary state” and “Dhammadivpa” theories. The Mahavamsa
author being a Buddhist monk and justifying the killing of around sixty
thousand Tamils/Hindus (aka invaders) by Dutugemunu is one reason why
others (non-Buddhists) think that Sinhala-Buddhism is somewhat of a
violent barbaric form of Buddhism where killing Tamils is justified. The
killing of Tamils in Sri Lanka by the Sinhala-Buddhists even today is
due to this uncivilized and barbaric ehhno-religion known as
Sinhala-Buddhism (or Mahavamsa-Buddhism).

There is a clear record of all the main events of Buddha, the places
he visited, with whom he was, where and what he preached and to whom he
preached, in the Buddhist scriptures Tripitika, but nowhere it is
mentioned that the Buddha visited or even spoke about the island of
Lanka. In order to protect Buddhism in Sri Lanka from those powerful
South Indian Hindu kingdoms, Ven. Mahanama wrote the Mahavamsa, by added
his own imaginations and myths. He has introduced many events
concerning Buddha which never took place, things that Buddha has never
said or done, events which are not mentioned in any of the Buddhist
scriptures (both Theravada and Mahayana).

For example, according to the Mahavamsa, Buddha made three magical
trips to Sri Lanka, each time colonizing another area of the island, in
preparation for the formal introduction of Buddhism two centuries after
his death. One of these trips was to settle a dispute between the
Yakkhas and Nagas at Naga Divipa (Ninathivu) where the Buddha tamed the
Yakkhas, the non-human inhabitants of the island.

There is no evidence whatsoever to support this claim (Buddha’s 3
visits), other than the three chaithiyas (Buddhist structures) built in
the recent past by the Sinhalese Buddhists at 3 different locations to
say, ‘This is where Buddha came.’ Even the footprint of Buddha at Sri
Pada (Adam’s peak) is nothing but an obvious myth.

According to the Mahavamsa, just before passing away, Buddha has called the Sakka (King of Gods) and told him,

‘My doctrine, O Sakka, will eventually be established in the Island
of Lanka, and on this day, Vijay the eldest son of Singha Bahu king of
Sinhapura in the Lata country lands there with 700 followers and will
assume sovereignty there. Do thou, therefore guard well the prince and
his train and the Island of Lanka. On receiving the blessed one’s
command, Sakka summoned God Vishnu and said, ‘Do thou. O lotus-hued one,
protect with zeal prince Vijay and his followers and the doctrine that
is to endure in Lanka for a full five thousand years’.

It should be noted that in Buddhist scriptures, Buddha has never
mentioned about any Hindu/Brahmanical Gods, he only talks about Devas
and Bramahas from different worlds who have no connection with any
Hindu/Brahmanical Gods.

Jathika Chintanaya (Mahavamsa mindset) and its consequences

Ven. Mahanama has created an imaginary link between the three
elements, Country-Race-Religion and made it into one unit similar to the
Holy Trinity, whereby Sri Lanka (Dhamma Deepa), Buddha’s chosen people
(Sinhalese), and Buddhism (Buddha Sasana) should be protected for 5000
years. This is known as the Jathika chintanaya or the Mahavamsa mindset
and its outcome is the ‘Sinhala-Budda Deepa’ and ‘unitary state’.
Therefore, for the next 2500 years, a Sinhala Buddhist will never allow a
federal state or any autonomy for others (non-Sinhala-Buddhists) in Sri
Lanka.

What we witness today is a kind of political Buddhism trying to
promote the interests of the Sinhala-Buddhist people, rather than
religion (Buddhism) as a path for personal salvation, and it is the main
impediment to peace in the Island of Sri Lanka because it is based on
the doctrine of primacy and superiority of the Sinhala race and the
Buddhist religion.

From a very young age, the innocent Sinhala Buddhist children who
attend the Daham Paasela (Sunday school) in the Buddhist temples are
brainwashed by engraving the Mahavamsa Buddhism and Sinhala Buddhist
racism into their sub-conscious minds. They are taught to believe that
the non-Sinhala Buddhists (Tamils) are invaders who do not belong to Sri
Lanka. All the Tamils should be chased away to Tamil Nadu just the way
their ancient Kings Dutugemunu did. The country (Sri Lanka), Sinhala
race and Buddhism should be protected from the Tamils. Now, from
recently, they have also included the Christians in those needing to be
thrown out. Due to the above conditioning, the Sinhala-Buddhist majority
believes that the entire Sri Lanka belongs to them and the minorities
are aliens.

One good example is the former Army Chief Lt.-Gen. Sarath Fonseka
who once said that he strongly believes that Sri Lanka belongs to the
Sinhalese, the minorities can live in the country with them (Sinhalese)
but they must not try to demand undue things. This is the common
understanding/belief not only among the Sinhalese masses (both educated
and uneducated) and the Buddhist clergy but also among the Sinhalese
political leaders right from the top as we see from the Sinhala Only Act
in 1956, the Sinhala-Only (sri) vehicle license-plates policy in 1958
(have we learned anything from its aftermath that has ruined the country
for many decades?) and the recent proposal to scrap the Tamil version
of the national anthem and have a Sinhala-Only National Anthem, but
unlike the former army chief, these politicians are extra careful when
uttering in public due to diplomacy.

Coming out of ignorance

In Sri Lanka, the history is already twisted many centuries ago and
sealed. What we have is not history but his-story (Ven. Mahanama’s
story). Today the myth has become the truth and if anybody tries to undo
the twist (after enormous amount of new discoveries) he/she will be
considered an unpatriotic traitor or even a ‘terrorist supporter’. Some
of the new archaeological discoveries (artefacts) which are not in
favour of the Mahavamsa mythology are either hidden (not allowed to
reveal the facts) or they are made to disappear by none other than the
governing authorities in order to keep the majority community happy.

For example, the archaeologist Prof. Senerath Paranawithana being a
non-Buddhist had to come up with magical evidence from his research to
prove the accuracy of the stories in the Mahavamsa (misinterpret as true
history). Once when he deviated (by saying the truth that Buddha never
visited the island) he was forced to deny.

During that turbulent period (when Buddhism was under threat), the
Mahavamsa author Ven. Mahanama and the Mahavihara monks had a genuine
reason for the above mythology but unfortunately today due to ignorance
and lack of rational thinking, the Sinhala Buddhists still believe the
Mahavamsa as the gospel truth.

As long as the Sinhalese remain ignorant, as long as they cling on
to the 2500 years old mysteries of the past as their guide, as long as
they remain engrossed to the Mahavamsa mindset, whatever solution the
that the government tries/pretends to bring in, the Sinhala-Buddhists
are not going to accept. Scholars and analysts have identified that the
‘Sinhala (Mahavamsa) Buddhist mindset,’ (about the Sinhala Buddhist
claim to the whole island of Lanka), as the reason why most of the
Sinhalese cannot be rational and liberal.

The so called Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) should have
understood by now that the first lesson and most probably the only
important lesson that the Sinhala majority has to learn in order to come
out from their ignorance is to differentiate/distinguish between
Sinhala and Sri Lanka. Only when the Sinhalese clearly understand that
Sinhala-ness and Sri Lankan-ness are not the same but two different
things, we will be able to see some light at the end of the tunnel
(peace will prevail) and the Sri Lankan Tamils will be able to give up
their demands and unite as one Sri Lankan nation.

As responsible leaders, not only the government and the opposition
but the moderate Sinhala media personnel, educated and intelligent
Sinhalese people and moderate religious leaders/Buddhist clergy should
educate the Sinhala nation to think rationally and
distinguish/differentiate Sinhala from Sri Lanka, Buddhism from
Sinhala-Buddhism, and Myths from Facts, explaining the reason why the
Pali chronicles were written during that period of extreme danger to
Buddhism, which is not the case today.

Retrieved from
http://www.articlesbase.com/non-fiction-articles/from-barbaric-sinhala-buddhism-to-civilized-buddhism-3897195.html
(ArticlesBase SC #3897195)

Published: December 31, 2010

Printer-friendly version

Discuss this article (3 posts)

comments (0)